McDaniel v Barresi, Jr. Collection of Briefs

    3 S

Mc.DAKI.EI.

V.

BA .,AES:i

BRIEFS

0. S. SUPREME 
COURT





4











IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER TERM, 1970

- - - - - - - - *- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  L € " £  -

No. 420 %

CHARLES McDANIEL, et a l.  
Petitioners,

JOSEPH BARRESI, JR., et a l.  
Respondents.

On Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Georgia

BRIEF OF PETITIONERS

EUGENE A. EPTING 
ERWIN, EPTING, GIBSON & CHILIVIS 

P. 0. Box 1587 
Athens, Georgia 30601 

Counsel for Petitioners

St. Louis Law Printing Co., Inc., 411-15 N. Eighth St. 63101 314-231-4477



• v .-;\  "!' • i  r ' >  . y
^ ‘ l  { Vv ^  / '# *'■ \ V '*\  '  '1 1 ■ i ‘ ' ' *'- '  . . ' 4  / *  ■"■ .V' - ■: /  • '■ V • \ . >• •, ■ ■■Jr' U

■

V y .;*  ■- , -  V •
X - i y  ;■■ a -1> -.x , .  x . f  ••\ t  -

'  V  V ' ' K  r -  V  '  :

■$% >

>.-• y v \  - U \ - ‘
'• V .- " .....• .rv-i:

<4 . 4  :U

44 ,’ik-' X X X - iC X ’ ' f X•/- R t  V ! ,? •:«£ i:;.’ ■ si-! ■>.' ■ v
X , . ■ i 3 VV / -'.s', "V s

| p  f  
%

HE,A: VJ>:.VV \s
, -O, S ■ fk s, XVV §J.f

:U¥ :

iV-

mm* 
t M . - l.'* -4 y ,iv%'

.-.y"

i  S ' /c iv

f i .  ^  m t- 
-

4'/. •,
mum\H

■t! . . - A  v , . M »»•_•- / ^ • /-

■ -

'  ^  'S

f fe «

:

f , . V ,  „  _ -  t

' •' ' v‘ l

xv-v V ' c si' , - - ^ - ‘  -
Y  -> : ~ , y  >

^ ‘ y '.\ /  ‘  ■ ’ '-A,.,- /C '. :  V. '  A '  v ’ '  ’■' k:
> ;̂>v - X. - r  :v-M-V ^ V -^ . ’x--' v-Y..- -

, - v ' i v  ■■'■:.* s - >' Y / -■  • . -  -•

v y ;<.  ̂ . -v' ^.n-x-X '^ i  , ! a > \ - ; -V-v ,y • - -  '-' v-
• /  , i>  > ■' >• • i i  -  /■: ••■ .'•.■ • , '■ Y 'h ' '■ • ’ • > v

■'. ’ ‘ ■'* . • ■; v , 4  ;■ s ? t;;; .. ‘ .
,

■ - ' - ! -

r - r  V - f  ■:

I  :

- k <  s ;-v .: ( ( ^ y i r

m$m* V■
.3.'a v‘'y

mmy4 m
■ -u>mrnrm•4

A
$4

m m M
•mm:.

A  m m , •-*>4; '
'V r,

■iU:'hiu
m’-‘m fulfil

44'-4'4̂  x

'  1 4  1 ' -  r '
w m  m 4  a  3 - % i, *w  a ; 4 4

mm '' yA'->v  ' -4 y;- ' 44 ' -  -A-y-v m '>' m/s >.
s 5 « ■a •

fe :4 — ' A  u m%,m ■ i v

■
' V A  4 ' 3 V ' : 3 v . . ' A ' , ; -  ,'■ i ’. ,  ; ■ '• ' / A .

4'4',x-4 q~r  »  .¥3,"

M u m ..
mmUiT, I-

p /’J .sEM- WS 

f
"’ M f

U-UM <,'U- ' ’•' ■•• r /
I f *  >  A -  V.4 ' : 4 -  ... s . , ,  . , , ,

,

i ® l- -6 v4 ",
M u.’ m~ -  m ‘ s - ‘ : . s

U M '■ !:■ ' .V X •■ .• <4. 4.vi u m

M /Mf!

•If ‘v ■ J j i <* ' s’, /’'' (. 1 ' \ >y '! r* ' 4 1 Y*̂ *‘ . r"’ *̂ jeh''U’•■ , - • • . ■ 1 , • ' ( . , . TV'^i~ 1- » • • \ “V * > ■ ;v ' •' i \ -is-' y~ ■* " '■ , ■ ■*'’■■' •' 7 ■ ; • •-■'■- ■■- •'» 'At. i

:3 4 ' '^ 4 iA VA,.4ai t K:

' s ;  g

' ■ ,34 ,-W -Vi.'A ■- 7
’> >  - V . < A j  ~.

-S' sA ^ W ^ a M 1' ^■ 4 m,̂  4 1 '4 - i-t  ̂  ̂ r ,/f
‘ ’ ^  ' ' x ^  < - \ : 

'M -- ; U,U'’:','\:' v-.:' ,•;., 4 .'4V3 iiT ’’ 'c A.4
. -H , s ~ j  - <C* >'‘ r - '  v 4 ^

,
• - - -  v . . * ^  A ' - ■  V - ^  • v . .  . - . •4-ry > ‘ •: - v  v ‘ V '4 -  ■' - 4

M c ' v - a - ; ;  -

y / 'C;; - '
4 %  '

*
: m u m u  m ^ m u m m  

■

i c  a * . - -

m m ' " ' '  ' va ;4 ;V 4 -- . ^ k 4 4 7 -  : -■ a .a ' 4  -v.'A-.’ .4 - . 4  ..
•VJS

>■S'-V ', A  A -\  ,. , ’ \  ;;•• V j . X ' '  h'
4  r f v ,  V  /• tf. . \.-A-v4 t ' ' >• - ' X  • ,. ,v f  4 * 4 'e v  "  . '-

•- ,̂. **’ '■•N'" 4 /V  ’ ^ - J- ^

v 41 ."4 ■ ■

s F
' a • X X ' . v

•a & v v ' '\ ; 4 X . :
4?" '.A :* 'iMv '-JAr -s.'47 ;• 4 ■

- A X

VAX!
' m . i m .

i

p j  y V 4v4nV O X •
4 - ' Y ;■ _ •■/ ' v| v ''•-

i '" . m m .

,  y y  %

. ... . 4 4  4  3 r v > 4
y A , . . .  v  y  s  > r  ^  .. ,  , , <  ,  -

'• . ;  ? ' . 1. '  ,

'  f  - m  ■ y. '
u r n  - m i , . ,.. ,
4 ‘ 4 , a  - . . 4 r :

>f % \ 4 UiMUmmmm- ^:fmUM
- _  ̂ >r- . f ■"*' '• *r i  * • a- n,m  ... " a.v .■■.■'■ s,v .Vs. j

• . ..a  - V >
vy i X

; y v y ; r . S'  s  ..



TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page

Opinions below .................................................................  2
Jurisdiction .......................................................................  2
Constitutional provisions and statutes involved ............  2

Questions presented.......................................................... 3

Statement of facts ............................................................ 1
Summary of argument......................................................  7

Argument ...........................................................................  3
1. Boards of education of public schools have the

judicially declared affirmative duty to take what­
ever action may be necessary to desegregate 
their schools ............................................................ 8

2. In the placement of students in schools a board
of education is vested with a wide discretion . . .  10

3. A person does not have any constitutional right
to choose which school a child shall attend; nor 
is assignment to a more distant or less conveni­
ent school than another in the system a viola­
tion of constitutional rights under the Fourteenth 
Amendment .............................................................. 11

4. While the establishment of a unitary school sys­
tem requires that students be assigned without 
regard to their race, it is necessary that race be 
taken into consideration in order to eliminate a 
formerly operated dual school system ...............  15

5. The Civil Bights Act of 1964 does not prohibit
voluntary action by a board of education which 
involves the moving, by bus or otherwise, of 
students from one area to another in order to 
accomplish school desegregation...........................  16

Conclusion .........................................................................  17



X I

Cases Cited

Acree v. County Board of Education of Richmond
County, Georgia, 294 F. Supp. 1034 (S. D. G a .)___  13

Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Education, 396 
U. S. 19, 90 S. Ct. 29, 24 L. Ed. 2d 1 9 .......................  9

Beddingfield v. Parkerson, 212 Ga. 654 (94 S. E. 2d 
714) ................................................................................. 11

Caddo Parish School Board v. United States, 389 U. S.
840, 88 S. Ct. 67, 19 L. Ed. 2d 1 0 3 ............................. 13

Carter v. West Feliciana School Board, 396 U. S. 290,
90 S. Ct. 608, 24 L. Ed. 2d 477 ................................... 9

Davis v. Board of School Commissioners of Mobile 
County, et al., 393 F. 2d 690 (5th Cir.) ................. 10,13

Green v. School Board of New Kent County, 391
U. S. 430, 88 S. Ct. 1689, 20 L. Ed. 2d 7 16 .................  8,9

Griffin v. School Board of Prince Edward County, 377 
U. S. 218, 84 S. Ct. 1226, 12 L. Ed. 2d 256 ...............  13

Henry v. Clarksdale Municipal Separate School Dis­
trict, et al., 409 F. 2d 682 (5th Cir.) .........................  10

Joseph Barresi, Jr., et al. v. Browne, President of 
Clarke County Board of Education, et al., 226 Ga.
456, . . .  S. E. 2d .......................................................... 2

Keever v. Board of Education of Gwinnett County, 188 
Ga. 299 (3 S. E. 2d 886) ............................................  11

Keyes v. School District No. 1, Denver, Colorado (D. 
Col.), 303 F. Supp. 298 ................................................  16

Kotch v. River Port Pilot Commissioner, 330 U. S.
552, 67 S. Ct. 910, 91 L. Ed. 1093 ............................... 13

McKenzie v. Walter, 210 Ga. 189 (2) (78 S. E. 2d 486) 11
Monroe, et al. v. Board of Commissioners, 391 U. S.

450, 88 S. Ct. 1700, 20 L. Ed. 2d 733 9



Ill

Northcross v. Board of Education of Memphis, 397 
U. S. 232, 90 S. Ct. 891, 25 L. Ed. 2d 246 .................  9

Olson v. Board of Education (E. D., New York), 250 
F. Supp. 1000 .................................................................  16

Olson v. Board of Education of U. Free School Dis­
trict No. 12, 250 F. Sup. 1000 ..................................... 11

Raney et al. v. Board of Education, 391 U. S. 443,
88 S. Ct. 1697, 20 L. Ed. 2d 727 ................................. 9

Spangler v. Pasadena City Board of Education (C. D.
Cal.), 311 F. Supp. 501 (20).................................<.. . 16

United States v. Indianola Municipal Separate School 
District, 410 F. 2d 626 (5th Cir.)................................. 10

United States v. Jefferson County Board of Education,
372 F. 2d 836, aff’d en banc, 380 F. 2d 285 ........12,13,16

United States v. School District 151 of Cook County, 
Illinois (N. D. 111.), 286 F. Sup. 786 ....................... 15-16

Wanner v. County School Board of Arlington County, 
Virginia, 357 F. 2d 452 (4th Cir.) . .........................  15

Statutes Cited

Constitution of the United States:
Amendment XIV ........................................................2, 3, 6

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub. Laws 88-352, Title 
IV, Section 401; 78 Stat. 246, 42 USCA (Chapter 21) 
Section 2000c) ....................................................2,4,6,7,18

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub. Laws 88-352, Title 
IV, Section 407; 78 Stat. 428, 42 USCA (Chapter 21) 
Section 2000c-6 (a) (2)) .....................................3,6,7,18

Text Cited

79 C. J. S. 368, Section 450 10





IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER TERM, 1970

No. 420

CHARLES McDANIEL, et al., 
Petitioners,

vs.
JOSEPH BARRESI, JR., et a l. 

Respondents.

On Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Georgia

BRIEF OF PETITIONERS

Petitioners are the Superintendent of Education and 
members of the Board of Education of Clarke County, 
Georgia; and, with certain predecessors in office, were 
defendants in two actions filed in the Superior Court of 
Clarke County, Georgia, the Plaintiffs, who included the 
Respondents herein, seeking to have enjoined the use of 
an elementary school attendance plan adopted by Clarke 
County Board of Education; wherein injunctions were de­
nied, but on appeal to the Supreme Court of Georgia the 
judgment of the Trial Court was reversed.



—  2 —

OPINIONS BELOW

Petitioners applied for Writ of Certiorari to review the 
opinion and judgment of the Supreme Court of Georgia in 
the case of Joseph Barresi, Jr., et al. v. Browne, President 
of Clarke County Board of Education, et al., 226 Ga. 456, 
. . .  S. E. 2d . . . ;  (A-228-234), which judgment reversed 
the judgment of the Superior Court of Clarke County, 
Georgia (A-32-36), which judgment is unreported.

JURISDICTION

Petitioners’ application for Writ of Certiorari was filed 
July 20, 1970, seeking a review and reversal of an opinion 
and judgment rendered by the Supreme Court of Georgia 
on June 15, 1970 (A-228-234); jurisdiction of the Supreme 
Court of the United States being invoked under Title 28, 
U. S. Code, Section 1257 (3). The Supreme Court of 
Georgia is the highest Court of the State of Georgia in 
which a decision could be had; and the case involves the 
claimed rights and privileges of the parties under the 
Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United 
States.

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS AND 
STATUTES INVOLVED

1. Constitution of the United States, Amendment XIV, 
Section I:

“ . . . nor shall any State deprive any person of life, 
liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor 
deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal 
protection of the laws.”

2. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub. Laws 88-352, 
Title IV, Section 401; 78 Stat. 246, 42 USCA (Chapter 
21) Section 2000c) which provides in pertinent part:



3

“ As used in this sub-chapter . . . (b) ‘ desegrega­
tion’ means the assignment of students to public 
schools and within such schools without regard to 
their race, color, religion, or national origin, but 
‘ desegregation’ shall not mean the assignment of stu­
dents to public schools in order to overcome racial 
imbalance. ’ ’

3. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub. Laws 88-352, Title 
IV, Section 407; 78 Stat. 428, 42 USCA (Chapter 21) Sec­
tion 2000c-6 (a) (2)) which provides in pertinent part:

“ . . . nothing herein shall empower any official or 
court of the United States to issue any order seeking 
to achieve a racial balance in any school by requiring 
the transportation of pupils or students from one 
school to another or one school district to another in 
order to achieve such racial balance, or otherwise 
enlarge the existing power of the court to insure com­
pliance with constitutional standards.”

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

1. Whether the Supreme Court of Georgia was correct 
in holding that a plan adopted by Clarke County Board of 
Education for attendance of students in the elementary 
schools of Clarke County School District constituted a vio­
lation of the constitutional rights, under the equal pro­
tection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Con­
stitution of the United States, of those students who were 
thereby required to attend schools more distant from 
their residences than other schools in the school district. 
The plan in question was adopted in July of 1969, and ap­
proved by the Civil Rights Division of the Department 
of Health, Education and Welfare on August 7, 1969, and 
established school attendance zones in such a manner as 
to accomplish substantial integration of white and black 
students in all such schools, with a ratio of 20% to 40% 
black and 80% to 60% white students in each school used



as a criterion; and which plan included five areas de­
scribed as “ pockets”  or “ satellite zones” , from which 
areas students were assigned to schools more distant from 
their residences than other elementary schools of their 
grade level in the system; which plan involved the busing 
of students in some zones to schools more distant from 
their residences than other elementary schools in the sys­
tem.

2. Whether the Supreme Court of Georgia was correct 
in holding that the provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 
1964 (Pub. Laws 88-352, Title IV, Section 401 and 407, 78 
Stat. 246 and 248, 42 TTSCA, Chapter 21) prohibited a 
board of education from adopting and operating a school 
attendance plan which involved the assignment of students 
to public schools in order to overcome racial imbalance, 
and the transportation of students from one school zone 
to another in order to achieve a racial balance.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Beginning in 1963, Clarke County Board of Education 
began integration of its schools, first by means of transfer 
applications, and subsequently by use of “ freedom of 
choice”  and zoning, all without the compulsion of any 
court proceeding or order. In the 1968-69 school year it 
operated on a zone basis for outlying areas, and freedom 
of choice for schools in the central areas of the City of 
Athens. This was with approval of the Department of 
Health, Education and Welfare (HEW) (A-160).

In October 1968, HEW notified the Board of Education 
that a plan would be required for future years which 
would involve greater desegregation of students and 
faculty. A committee of three members of the Board, as 
well as faculty, administrative staff members, citizens 
groups, and the School Desegregation Education Center of 
the University of Georgia, studied various zoning, pairing 
and other plans; and the Board of Education finally, on

—  4 —



April 24, 1969, approved a “ Neighborhood Plan”  as being 
the best that conld be devised, in view of the complicated 
racial distribution and housing patterns and transportation 
problems in Clarke County. This plan had the tentative 
approval of the Atlanta office of HEW, but after sub­
mitting it to the Washington, D. C., Civil Rights Division 
of HEW, and after considerable discussion and delay by 
that office, the plan was rejected by letter of June 30, 
1969, primarily because the plan left some schools with a 
small minority of white students and would tend to result 
in resegregation (A-161-164).

After considering the possibility of submitting a differ­
ent plan, the Board of Education, on July 16, 1969, voted 
to proceed with a hearing before a hearing director on the 
question of legality of the Neighborhood Plan previously 
submitted. However, on July 30, 1969, after several meet­
ings, the Board adopted what was called a “ Compromise 
Zoning Plan” , which was submitted to and approved by 
the Washington office of HEW on August 7, 1969. This is 
the plan which is involved in this litigation (A-165).

This plan is basically a neighborhood zone plan, but 
involves four “ Pockets”  to he bussed from one zone to 
schools in another, and one “ pocket”  from which stu­
dents were within one and one-half miles of two schools, 
and were assigned to the one of those two schools further 
from their home (A-174).

In order to have space in the schools to which students 
were sent from these pockets, it was necessary to adjust 
zone lines for those schools in such a manner that some 
students would be transported to schools other than those 
nearer their residences. The primary purpose of this plan 
was to achieve some degree of racial balance, and the 
members of the Board of Education, when asked by the 
committee appointed to devise a plan, what racial com­
position should he considered, suggested a criterion of 
20% to 40% black in each school (A-182, 204).

—  5 —



Two actions were filed in Clarke Superior Court to 
enjoin the operation of this plan, the plaintiff’s being 
groups of white parents of children residing in zones 
whereby they were transported to schools more distant 
from their residences than other schools; and also three 
black citizens who resided in the “ Pocket”  from which 
their children walked to a school in an adjoining zone, 
while there was another school nearer their residences. 
None of those persons in the four “ Pockets”  required to 
be transported by bus were parties to either of these ac­
tions (A-48).

The petitions in these actions contended, among other 
things, that the plan violated the Fourteenth Amendment 
rights plaintiffs to equal protection of the laws, and vio­
lated the provisions of Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 
1964 (A-8 and 22).

These actions, together with a third action by plaintiffs 
against the Georgia State Board of Education (not ma­
terial here), were consolidated for trial, and after hearing 
the Trial Judge denied the injunction sought by plaintiffs 
(A-32-36).

Some of the plaintiffs in those actions appealed to the 
Supreme Court of Georgia, which Court, on June 15, 1970, 
reversed the judgment of the Trial Judge, and ruled that 
the plan adopted by Clarke County Board of Education 
was unconstitutional in that it deprived plaintiffs-Appel- 
lants of equal protection of laws as guaranteed by the' 
Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United 
States; and that it was in violation of Title IV of the 
Civil Rights Act of 1964, in that it assigned students to 
particular schools solely on account of their race (A-228- 
234).

This plan, while designated at the time of its adoption 
as a plan for the 1969-70 school year, must continue as the 
basic plan for future years, with some modifications, and,

—  6 —



if desegregation is to continue, must still retain the 
“ Pocket Bussing”  and zoning in the manner declared un­
constitutional hy the Supreme Court of Georgia, unless that 
decision is upheld. Whether the decision of the Supreme 
Court of Georgia is correct or not is the question which 
the Supreme Court of the United States is asked to deter­
mine.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

1. Boards of Education of public schools have the ju­
dicially declared ‘ ‘ affirmative duty to take whatever action 
may be necessary to desegregate their schools so that they 
are no longer identifiable as white schools or Negro 
schools.”

2. In the placement of students in schools a board of 
education is vested with a wide discretion.

3. Neither a child nor his or her parents has any con­
stitutional right to choose which school the child shall 
attend; nor is assignment to a more distant or less con­
venient school than another school in the system a viola­
tion of the person’s constitutional rights under the Four­
teenth Amendment.

4. While the establishment of a unitary school system 
requires that students be assigned without regard to their 
race, it is necessary that race be taken into consideration 
in order to eliminate a formerly operated dual school 
system.

5. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub. Laws 88-352, 
Title IV, Section 401; 78 Stat. 246; 42 USCA, Section 
2000c, and Title IV, Section 407, 78 Stat. 248, 42 USCA, 
Section 2000c 6(a)) does not prohibit voluntary action 
by a board of education which involves busing from one 
area to another in order to accomplish school desegrega­
tion.



ARGUMENT

1. Boards of Education of Public Schools Have the 
Judicially Declared Affirmative Duty to Take Whatever 
Action May Be Necessary to Desegregate Their Schools.

The opinion and judgment of the Supreme Court of 
Georgia (A-228-234), which the petitioners herein insist 
should be reversed and set aside, holds that the school 
attendance plan adopted by Clarke County Board of Edu­
cation violates the rights of the Plaintiffs in the Trial 
Court, who are parents of children attending elementary 
schools in Clarke County, Georgia, under the equal pro­
tection of the laws clause of the Fourteenth Amendment 
to the Constitution of the United States. The opinion of 
the Supreme Court of Georgia states that . . i n  our 
view, the United States Supreme Court has not declared 
that compulsory integration of the races in public school 
systems is demanded.” The opinion cites Green v. School 
Board of New Kent County, 391 U. S. 430, 88 S. Ct. 1689, 
20 L. Ed. 2d 716, as its authority for this conclusion.

We do not understand Green to authorize the conclusion 
reached by the Supreme Court of Georgia. In fact, Green 
very plainly states (pp. 437-8) that school boards under 
Brown II are “clearly charged with the affirmative duty 
to take whatever steps might be necessary to convert to 
a unitary system in which racial discrimination would be 
eliminated root and branch.” Green further states (p. 439) 
that “ The burden on a school board today is to come 
forward with a plan that promises realistically to work, 
and promises realistically to work now.” Also (p. 442), 
that “The Board must be required to . . . fashion steps 
which promise realistically to convert promptly to a 
system without a ‘white’ school and a ‘negro’ school, but 
just schools.”

—  8 —



The issue in Green was whether or not a “ freedom of 
choice” plan adopted by the school board of New Kent 
County, Virginia, was a sufficient compliance with law, 
and this Court held that it was not. To the same effect 
were the decisions of this Court in Raney, et al. v. Board 
of Education, 391 U. S. 443, 88 S. Ct. 1697, 20 L. Ed. 2d 
727; and in Monroe, et al. v. Board of Commissioners, 391 
U. S. 450, 88 S. Ct. 1700, 20 L. Ed. 2d 733. Monroe dealt 
with what was called a “ free transfer” plan, and the 
Court held (p. 449) that “ . . . if it cannot be shown 
that such a plan will further rather than delay conversion 
to a unitary, nonracial, nondiscriminatory school system, 
it must be held unacceptable.”

In Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Education,
396 U. S. 19, 90 S. Ct. 29, 24 L. Ed. 2d 19, this Court 
states that “Under explicit holdings of this Court the 
obligation of every school district is to terminate dual 
school systems at once and to operate now and hereafter 
only unitary schools.”

If there is any doubt that this Court has declared that 
compulsory integration of the races in public school sys­
tems is demanded, the cases of Green and Alexander, as 
followed and applied in Carter v. West Feliciania School 
Board, 396 U. S. 290, 90 S. Ct. 608, 24 L. Ed. 2d 477, and 
Northeross v. Board of Education of Memphis, 397 U. S. 
232, 90 S. Ct. 891, 25 L. Ed. 2d 246, should make it abun­
dantly clear that boards of education are required to not 
merely refrain from assigning students to racially segre­
gated schools, but to institute assignment policies whereby 
all schools will contain substantially integrated students 
and faculty.

The Courts of Appeals, and particularly of the Fifth 
Circuit, have very clearly held that determination of school 
zones which result in continuing segregation because 
some schools remain substantially white while others re­

—  9 —



- 10 -

main substantially all black do not meet the constitutional 
requirements, and school boards have been required to 
alter zone lines or adopt other attendance plans whereby 
mixing of the races in all schools will be accomplished. 
Davis v. Board of Commissioners of Mobile County, et al., 
393 F. 2d 690 (5th Cir.); United States v. Indianola Mu­
nicipal Separate School District, 410 F. 2d 626 (5th Cir.); 
Henry v. Clarksdale Municipal Separate School District, 
et al., 409 F. 2d 682 (5th Cir.).

2. In the Placement of Students in Schools a Board of 
Education Is Vested With a Wide Discretion.

“ A school board may exercise discretionary power to 
assign pupils to the several schools within its jurisdiction, 
and, where orders and rules made pertaining thereto are 
reasonable, necessary, and such as will best afford all eligi­
ble an opportunity to receive the benefits of proper in­
struction, they will be sustained by the courts.”  79 C. J. S. 
368, Section 450.

Respondents’ children were not assigned to a particular 
school on account of their race, but because they resided 
in an area zoned for that school. Begardless of the race 
of the individual, all students in the area were assigned 
to the designated school, but, of necessity, racial composi­
tion of the area was a prime consideration.

But, even if it be assumed that the Supreme Court of 
Georgia was correct in its conclusion that the children 
of Respondents were excluded from attending a particular 
school on account of their race, this would still not con­
stitute a violation of their rights under the Fourteenth 
Amendment under the circumstances and conditions exist­
ing. In the exercise of its discretion, and in order to ac­
complish required desegregation of its schools, Clarke 
County Board of Education had to make adjustments and 
relocations of students.



— 11 —

In Olson v. Board of Education of U. Free School Dis­
trict. No. 12, 250 F. Sup. 1000, on page 1010, the Court
stated: “ While classifications based on race alone are 
‘ constitutionally suspect’ under the Equal Protection 
Clause, such a classification is not proscribed if it is 
necessary to the accomplishment of a permissible State 
policy. The Commissioner has determined that classifica­
tion is necessary to effectuate the State’s policy of equal 
educational opportunities and he has the support of ex­
pert opinion and the New York Court of Appeals. Under 
the circumstances this Court is not justified in interfering 
with that conclusion.”

The Supreme Court of Georgia has consistently recog­
nized, at least prior to the opinion herein concerned, that 
boards of education have a wide discretion in the matter 
of assigning students to schools within their district. 
Keever v. Board of Education of Gwinnett County, 188 
Ga. 299 (3 S. E. 2d 886); Beddingfield v. Parkerson, 212 
Ga. 654 (94 S. E. 2d 714); McKenzie v. Walter, 210 Ga. 
189 (2) (78 S. E. 2d 486).

3. A Person Does Not Have Any Constitutional Right 
to Choose Which School a Child Shall Attend; Nor Is 
Assignment to a More Distant or Less Convenient School 
Than Another in the System a Violation of Constitutional 
Rights Under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Clarke County Board of Education has consistently 
tried to meet its obligations with regard to desegregation 
in such a manner as to avoid being subjected to Court 
orders on the one hand and local disorders on the other 
(A-160-176). In April of 1969, after much consideration 
of various plans, it adopted and submitted to the Depart­
ment of Health, Education and Welfare what was called 
the “ Neighborhood Plan”  (A-167-168). While this plan 
had its faults in that it left four of the thirteen elementary



— 12 —

schools substantially all white and two predominantly 
black, no rearrangement of zone lines could be found to 
alleviate these conditions, without overcrowding some 
schools and leaving vacant spaces in others.

When that plan was rejected by HEW on June 30, 1969, 
the Board could find no workable alternative except the 
establishment of “ Pockets”  or “ Satellite Zones”  from 
which students would be transported to schools in other 
areas of the county. Since school facilities in such other 
areas were filled to capacity, it was necessary to adjust 
zone lines to relieve overcrowding and make room for 
those brought in (A-174-6). The Respondents, who are 
some of the Plaintiffs in the Trial Court, and the Appel­
lants in the Supreme Court of Georgia, are parents of 
white students who consider themselves displaced by such 
adjustment of zone lines, and three parents of black stu­
dents residing in the “ pocket”  from which students at­
tend a formerly all white school although they reside 
somewhat nearer a formerly all black school. None of the 
Respondents or other Plaintiffs in the Trial Court are 
parents of students being bused from any of the 
“ pockets”  or “ Satellite Zones”  (A-48).

The opinion of the Supreme Court of Georgia holds 
that “ The evidence here shows that Appellants’ children 
are ‘ effectively excluded’ from attending a school be­
cause of their race” ; and that “ This neither squares with 
the Fourteenth Amendment nor its interpretation by the 
United States Supreme Court holding that ‘ racial discrim­
ination’ is unconstitutional.”

That ruling can only be upheld if it is found that a stu­
dent has a constitutional right to attend a particular 
school or the school nearest his residence. We submit 
that no such right exists.

In United States v. Jefferson County Board of Educa­
tion, 372 F. 2d 836, aff’d en banc. 380 F. 2d 285, cert, de­



13 —

nied sub nom., Caddo Parish School Board v. United
States, 389 U. S. 840, 88 S. Ct. 67, 19 L. Ed. 2d 103, the 
Court of Appeals of the Fifth Circuit stated that “ A 
school child has no inalienable right to choose his school”  
(380 F. 2d at page 390). This was followed in Davis v. 
Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County, et al., 
393 F. 2d 690 (Note 5 on page 693), the Court adding 
there that “ The school board on the other hand, has a 
constitutional duty to desegregate its system.”  In Grif­
fin v. School Board of Prince Edward County, 377 IT. S. 
218, 84 S. Ct. 1226, 12 L. Ed. 2d 256, this Court held that 
“ The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amend­
ment relates to equality between persons in a state, not 
between areas.”  And that “ Showing that different per­
sons are treated differently is not enough, without more, 
to show a denial of equal protection; it is the circum­
stances of each case which govern.”

In Kotch v. River Port Pilot Commissioner, 330 IT. S.
552, 67 S. Ct. 910, 91 L. Ed. 1093, the Court stated (page 
556) that “ A law which affects the activities of some 
groups differently from the way in which it affects the 
activities of other groups is not necessarily banned by 
the Fourteenth Amendment (cit.). Otherwise, effective 
regulation in the public interest could not be provided, 
however essential that regulation might be.”

In Acree v. County Board of Education of Richmond 
County, Georgia, 294 F. Supp. 1034 (S. D. Ga.), the court 
recognized the principle that no student has a constitu­
tional right to attend a school of his own choice. The 
body of the opinion cites as authority for this statement 
the case of United States v. Jefferson County Board of 
Education, 372 F. 2d 236 (supra).

When it became necessary, in order for Clarke County 
Board of Education to comply with the mandates of this 
Court, in light of numerous decisions of Courts of Appeals



— 14 —

which made it obvious that thorough mixing of the races 
is required, and not merely permitting a few members of 
one race to attend schools where the other race was pre­
dominant, or drawing zone lines so that a small number of 
one race would attend schools predominantly occupied by 
the other, Clarke County Board of Education found itself 
confronted with a racial distribution problem in the county 
which defied solution. The Board adopted a “ Neighbor­
hood Plan”  (A-167-170), which, although zone lines were 
considerably distorted in order to afford more mixing of 
the races, still left two schools with more than 95% white 
and less than 5% black, two schools with more than 90% 
white and less than 10% black, one school with more than 
80% black and less than 20% white, and one school with 
more than 60% black and less than 40% white (A-167).

While this plan involved no racial discrimination, it 
was by no means without faults. That plan was rejected 
by HEW primarily because it was felt that shifting of 
persons who considered themselves adversely affected 
would result in resegregation (A-223-226).

The only course left for the Board to follow required 
some form of extensive busing of students of one race into 
schools predominantly occupied by the other. Since the 
latter schools were filled to capacity, adjustments in zone 
lines had to be, and were, made. The Respondents herein 
are some of those who were affected by the zone changes, 
and who, the Supreme Court of Georgia says, have been 
denied equal protection of the laws in violation of their 
rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.



15 —

4. While the Establishment of a Unitary School System 
Requires That Students Be Assigned Without Regard to 
Their Race, It Is Necessary That Race Be Taken Into 
Consideration in Order to Eliminate a Formerly Operated 
Dual School System.

In the opinion of the Supreme Court of Georgia it is 
stated that “ The Clarke County Board of Education has 
attempted to achieve a predetermined racial balance in 
its elementary schools by treating students differently be­
cause of their race.”  It is true that when a committee, 
appointed to make adjustments in the elementary school 
attendance plan, requested some guide line as to racial 
composition, the Board authorized a criterion of 20-40% 
black in each school (A. 181-2, 204).

In order for a board of education to comply with the 
requirements of this Court in Brown II, “ to effectuate 
a transition to a racially nondiscriminatory school sys­
tem” , and the requirement in Green charging school boards 
“ with the affirmative duty to take whatever steps might 
be necessary to convert to a unitary system in which racial 
discrimination would be eliminated root and branch” , the 
consideration of the racial composition of the school popu­
lation is absolutely necessary.

In Wanner v. County School Board of Arlington County, 
Virginia, 357 F. 2d 452 (4th Cir.) it is stated (page 454) 
that “ When school authorities, recognizing the historic 
fact that existing conditions are based on a design to 
segregate the races, act to undo these illegal conditions— 
especially conditions that have been judicially condemned 
—their effort is not to be frustrated on the ground that 
race is not a permissible consideration. This is not the 
‘ consideration of race’ which the Constitution discoun­
tenances. ’ ’



—  16

In United States v. Jefferson County Board of Educa­
tion, 373 F. 2d 836 (5th C i r . ) ,  on page 876, the Court 
states: “ The Constitution is both color blind and color 
conscious. To avoid conflict with the equal protection 
clause, a classification that denies a benefit, causes harm, 
or imposes a burden must not be based on race. In that 
sense, the Constitution is color blind. But the Constitu­
tion is color conscious to prevent discrimination being 
perpetuated and to undo the effects of past discrimination. 
The criterion is the relevancy of color to a legitimate 
governmental purpose.”  On page 877 it is stated that 
“ School officials have to know the racial composition of 
their school populations and the racial distribution within 
the school district. The courts and HEW cannot measure 
good faith or progress without taking race into account.”

5. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 Does Not Prohibit Vol­
untary Action by a Board of Education Which Involves 
the Moving, by Bus or Otherwise, of Students From One 
Area to Another in Order to Accomplish School 
Desegregation.

The opinion of the Supreme Court of Georgia, in sub­
division 2 thereof (A-232) holds that the plan adopted 
by Clarke County Board of Education was invalid as 
being in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub. 
L. 88-352, Title IV, Section 401; 78 Stat. 246, 42 USCA 
Chapter 21) (42 USCA, Section 2000c and Section 2000c,
6-a).

In United States v. Jefferson County Board of Edu­
cation, supra, 372 F. 2d at 878, the Court of Appeals of 
the Fifth Circuit clearly held that these provisions of 
the statute did not make such assignments unlawful. That 
decision has been followed in several other cases in­
cluding United States v. School District 151 of Cook



—  17 —

County, Illinois (N. D. 111.), 286 F. Supp. 786, 799; Keyes 
v. School District No. 1, Denver, Colorado (D. Col.), 303 
F. Supp. 298; Spangler v. Pasadena City Board of Edu­
cation (C. D. Cal.), 311 F. Supp. 501 (20).

The irrelevancy of such provisions of the Civil Rights 
Act to the plan adopted by Clarke County Board of Edu­
cation is probably best stated in Olson v. Board of Edu­
cation (E. D., New York), 250 F. Supp. 1000, on page 
1006, as follows: “ Plaintiff’s assertion that Section 401
(b) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U. S. C. A. Sec­
tion 2000c (b), constitutes a prohibition against any plan 
to correct racial imbalance is without merit. The defini­
tion of the word ‘ desegregation’ in that section relates to 
the administration of the government aid program in the 
desegregation of public schools. It has no relevance to 
the legality or the constitutionality of such a plan.”

CONCLUSION

The Board of Education of Clarke County, Georgia, 
had a duty to take affirmative action to desegregate its 
schools. Performance of that duty required the trans­
ferring of students from formerly segregated schools in 
such a manner as to mix the races in all schools. In view 
of limited facilities, the moving of students into a school 
necessitated the moving of others out by changing of zone 
lines or otherwise. While the exercise of the Board’s 
discretion in making necessary changes displeased some 
people, it did not violate their Constitutional rights.

The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amend­
ment does not entitle persons to choose which school their 
child will attend, nor does it prohibit boards of education 
from arranging attendance zones, transportation routes, 
and use of buildings and equipment, in such a manner 
as to best serve the needs of the whole community.



— 18 —

Title IV, Sections 401 and 407 of the Civil Eights Act 
of 1964 do not restrict boards of education in the exercise 
of their discretion relative to assignment of students to 
schools within their school systems.

The judgment of the Supreme Court of Georgia is er­
roneous, and should be reversed and set aside.

Respectfully submitted,

EUGENE A. EPTING, 
ERWIN, EPTING, GIBSON & 

CHILPVTS,
P. 0. Box 1587,

Athens, Georgia 30601 
Counsel for Petitioners











APPENDIX

In The

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER TERM, 1970

NO. 420

CHARLES MeDANIEL, et al., 
Petitioners,

JOSEPH BARRESI, JR., et al., 
Respondents.

ON W RIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE 
SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA

P E T IT IO N  FO R  C E R T IO R A R I F IL E D  J U L Y  20, 1970

H E A R IN G  G R A N T E D  A U G U S T  31, 1970







'



In The

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER TERM, 1970

NO. 420

CHARLES McDANIEL, et al., 
Petitioners,

vs.

JOSEPH BARRESI, JR., et al., 
Respondents.

ON WRIT OP CERTIORARI TO THE 
SUPREME COURT OP GEORGIA

APPENDIX

INDEX

Page

Agreement of counsel as to contents of appendix . . . .  1
Complaint—Joseph Barresi, Jr., et al............................  2

Defenses of all defendants..............................................  10

Complaint—Paul R. Wood, et al....................................  16

Defenses of all defendants ..............................................  24



Order of consolidation......................................................  31
Judgment ...........................................................................  32

Amended Findings ..........................................................  35

Transcript of Testimony in Clarke Superior Court

Robert Moran—
Cross-examination ...................................................... 37

Dr. Charles McDaniel—
Cross-examination......................................................  44
Direct examination....................................................  47

Plaintiffs’ Exhibits

A—Table of enrollment.................   49

B—Map and list ................................................................ 50

C—Map and list ................................................................ 52

D—Map and l i s t ................................................................ 54

E—Map and list ................................................................ 57

F—Map and list ................................................................ 60

Gr—Map ...............................................................................  62

Stipulation for amendment of appeal .........................  63

Transcript of Evidence Before Clarke 
County Board of Education

Appearances .......................................................................  71

Stipulation and statement of facts as contended by 
defendants .....................................................................  71

Call to order by Dr. Braudus B row n .............................  72

Opening statement by Mr. Leverett .............................  72

i i



Homer Fleming—
Cross-examination........................................................  73
Direct examination......................................................  87

Dr. Charles P. McDaniel—
Direct examination......................................................  88

Robert Hampton Moran—
Direct examination.....................................................  108
Cross-examination......................................................  124
Redirect examination...............................................   125

Dr. Frusanna Sneed Booth—
Direct examination ..................................................  126

Charles H. Anderson—
Direct examination....................................................  134

Mrs. Otis Sims—
Direct examination ..................................................  136
Cross-examination......................................................  137

Daniel F. Hobbs, J r . -
Direct examination ..................................................  137
Cross-examination......................................................  149
Redirect examination ..............................................  153

Dr. Booth (recalled)—
Redirect examination................................................  153

Mrs. Eddie Cross—
Direct examination.....................................................  154
Cross-examination.......................................................  155

Statement for Clarke County Board of Education in 
response to motion of Paul L. Wood, et al................. 160
Exhibit A -l—M a p ...........................................................  167

Exhibit A-2—Chart .......................................................  168

Exhibit A-3—Chart .......................................................  169

Ill



IV

Exhibit B—Summary of plans ................................... 170

Exhibit C-l—Map ........................................................  171

Exhibit C-2—T a b le ........................................................  172

Exhibit C-3—Chart ......................................................  173

Exhibit D-l—M a p ..........................................................  174

Exhibit D-2—Map ........................................................  175

Exhibit D-3—Plan ........................................................  176

Proceedings ........................................................................ 177

Plaintiffs’ Exhibits

1— Minutes of July 16, 1969 ......................................... 179

2— Minutes of July 21, 1969 ......................................... 192

3— Minutes of July 30, 1969 ......................................... 203

4— Map ............................................................................ 207

5— Neighborhood II fa c ts ............................................. 208

6— Plan B ........................................................................ 212

7— Evaluation of Transportation C osts.......................  216

8— Letter from Department of HEW .........................  223

9— Map ...........................................................................  227

Opinion of the Supreme Court of G eorgia .................  228

Judgment of Supreme Court of Georgia—Barresi v. 
Browne ...........................................................................  234

Judgment of Supreme Court of Georgia—Browne v. 
B arresi.............................................................................  234



IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE 
UNITED STATES

Charles McDaniel, et al.,
Petitioners,

vs.

Joseph Barresi, Jr., et al.,
Respondents.

No. 420 
>■ October Term, 

1970

AGREEMENT OF COUNSEL AS TO 
CONTENTS OF APPENDIX

Pursuant to Rule 36(2) of the Revised Rules of the 
Court, the Appendix as prepared by counsel for petitioners 
is hereby stipulated and agreed upon as being the Ap­
pendix to be printed in this case.

This 4th day of September, 1970.

Address:

Eugene A. Epting 
Eugene A. Epting of the Firm of 

Erwin, Epting, Gibson & Chilivis 
Attorneys for Petitioners

P. 0. Box 1587 
Athens, Georgia 30601

Address:

E. Freeman Leverett 
E. Freeman Leverett of the Firm of 

Heard & Leverett
Attorneys for Respondents

Box 896
Elberton, Georgia 30635



—  2 —

[12*] IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CLARKE 
COUNTY, GEORGIA

(Title Omitted—Filed Sept. 18, 1969)

COMPLAINT

Georgia }
Clarke County )

The complaint of plaintiffs above named respectfully 
shows to the Court as follows:

[13] 1
Dr. Broadus Browne, one defendant above named, is the 

President of the Board of Education of Clarke County, 
Georgia. Charles P. McDaniel, another defendant, is 
Superintendent of Schools of Clarke County, Georgia, and 
is executive secretary to the Board. All other defendants 
are members of the Board of Education of Clarke County, 
Georgia. All defendants are residents of Clarke County, 
Georgia, and are subject to the jurisdiction of this Court.

2

Plaintiffs are parents of minor children entitled to at­
tend and who are attending elementary public schools 
operating under the jurisdiction of the Clarke County 
Board of Education during the 1969-70 school year now in 
progress.

3

Plaintiffs are citizens and taxpayers of the United 
States, the State of Georgia, and of Clarke County, and 
reside in the communities respectively shown below:

* Numbers appearing in brackets indicate page numbers of 
original record.



Camelot—
Joseph Barresi, Jr. 
Jack D. Butler 
James H. Butler 
Richard D. Campbell 
Lawrence R. Collins

James L. Crosby 
Thomas W. Culbertson 
George T. Dailey 
James E. Davis 
Curtis E. Fraser

[14] A. R. Fleming 
Ray N. Hemphill 
John Hixson 
John A. Manley 
Elton McElheney 
J. R. Mocko

Samuel L. Round 
J. P. Sorrells 
Melvin P. Terry 
Raymond T. Wilkerson 
J. W. Bryson 
Earl W. Swank

Oconee Heights—
James S. Johnson 
Mrs. Faye Griffeth 
George L. Chassevent 
Herbert Craven 
Donal D. Hook

E. A. Tucker 
Mrs. Evelyn Messer 
Ernest C. Kessler 
Magnolia Faust

Tallassee Road—
W. H. Logan 
Carroll Ogletree

A. J. Lester 
Charles G. Bowden

Westgate Park— 
Richard Gnann 
Ray Gollihugh 
William Greene 
Heinz Hennig

Emory Linder 
Tommy Richards 
Henry Smith 
John Wilmot

[15] 4
Said communities are located in the Northwestern part 

of Clarke County, Georgia, in close proximity to the 
Whitehead Road Elementary School operated by the 
Clarke County Board of Education, which school was at­
tended by the minor children of the plaintiffs during the 
1968-69 school year.



— 4 —

5
Other than Mrs. Magnolia Faust, who is a Negro citi­

zen, all other plaintiffs are white citizens, and the four 
communities hereinbefore referred to reflect middle to 
upper class socio-economic characteristics.

6
The public schools operated and maintained by defend­

ants were operated under a freedom of choice attendance 
plan for the 1965-66, 1966-67 and 1967-68 school years 
pursuant to requirements of United States Department of 
Health, Education and Welfare.

7

For the school year 1968-69, seven elementary schools in 
Clarke County, to wit: Barnett Shoals, Alps Road, Fowler 
Drive, Gaines, North Athens, Winterville, and Whitehead 
Road, were operated on a geographic attendance zone 
basis, and all other schools in the system, including six 
other elementary schools, continued to operate under a 
freedom of choice attendance plan. Said plan was adopted 
by defendant [16] on January 29, 1968, and was approved 
by the United States Department of Health, Education 
and Welfare on or about August 26, 1968.

8
On July 30, 1969, defendants adopted a new plan of 

school desegregation entitled “ The Compromise Zoning”  
or “ Pocket Bussing”  plan for the school year 1969-70.

9

Under said plan, students nominally are assigned to 
elementary schools on the basis of geographic zones, ex­
cept that Negro students residing in “ pockets”  in five 
geographical zones are arbitrarily assigned, and in most



—  5  —

instances, bussed, to otherwise predominantly white 
schools outside the zones of their residences solely for the 
purpose of achieving racial balance.

10
Under said plan, the elementary children of plaintiffs 

are included in the North Athens Elementary School zone 
located much farther from their homes than either the 
Whitehead Road or Oglethorpe Schools, and this is based 
solely upon race, and to achieve racial balance.

11
Said plan is not reasonably calculated to bring about 

meaningful and effective desegregation in that it does not 
impose equal burdens upon all the citizens of Clarke 
County; will have the effect of [17] needlessly destroying 
and uprooting established residential patterns; encourages 
white displacement to avoid desegregation, and will 
quickly result in resegregation requiring the formulation 
of a new plan, thereby unnecessarily inflicting continuing 
chaos and instability upon the school patrons of Clarke 
County, Georgia.

12
Under said plan:
(a) The elementary pupils of all plaintiffs are being 

assigned and bussed from said communities to schools lo­
cated outside their respective communities but inside the 
City of Athens in areas of widely differing socio-economic 
complexion from the communities of their residences.

(b) The aforesaid pupils are being assigned and bussed 
to a school located much farther from their homes than 
two other schools located closer to their homes, and this 
assignment and bussing is based solely upon considera­
tions of race, and to achieve racial balance.



—  6  —

(c) The four communities hereinbefore named, together 
with the University Heights Community, constitute the 
only white communities in Clarke County from which chil­
dren are being bussed out of their neighborhoods, and this 
bussing is based solely upon considerations of race.

(d) Elementary pupils from Oconee Heights and Came- 
lot reside within walking distance of the Whitehead Road 
Elementary School as defined [18] by regulations of the 
State Board of Education, hut notwithstanding, said pupils 
are being assigned and bussed to the North Athens Ele­
mentary School solely to achieve racial balance.

(e) The North Athens Elementary School to which the 
minor children of plaintiffs are assigned is located in a 
blighted area of the City of Athens completely unsuited 
for an elementary school site. The area immediately sur­
rounding said school is commercial and industrial in 
character, and the nearest residential area thereto consists 
of Negro families of low socio-economic characteristics 
living mostly in small, substandard housing.

(f) Zone lines formulated by the Clarke County Board 
of Education for the North Athens School attendance zone 
were gerrymandered solely for the purpose of including 
the elementary pupils of plaintiffs in the North Athens 
Elementary School so as to achieve racial balance therein, 
and make space available in the Whitehead Road School 
so that Negro elementary pupils residing in pockets lo­
cated in other school districts could be assigned and bussed 
out of the school district of their residences to the White- 
head Road School so as to achieve racial balance therein.

(g) Plaintiffs have been singled out and classified dif­
ferently from other school patrons in Clarke County, 
Georgia, without any reasonable or rational basis for such 
classification.



[19] 13
Said plan was adopted by the Clarke County Board of 

Education notwithstanding that said Board had before it 
at least two alternative plans prepared by experts en­
gaged by the Board, both of which alternative plans of­
fered greater and more meaningful promise of effective 
desegregation without any likely prospect of resegregation.

14
Plaintiffs show that they heretofore filed Motion for 

Reconsideration with the Clarke County Board of Educa­
tion pursuant to Code, § 32-910, as amended, and the 
Regulations of the State Board of Education governing 
such appeals, seeking review and recission of said plan of 
desegregation on the same allegations and grounds herein­
after set forth; that said matter came on for hearing be­
fore the Clarke County Board of Education on August 13, 
1969, at which time evidence and argument were pre­
sented, that after hearing same the Clarke County Board 
of Education denied and overruled said Motion by a vote 
of 7 to 2; that within the time permitted by the Rules of 
the State Board of Education governing appeals, to wit, 
on August 15, 1969, appeal to the State Board of Educa­
tion was duly filed with the Superintendent of Schools 
of Clarke County; that said appeal together with a tran­
script of evidence and proceedings were duly transmitted 
to the State Board of Education and came on for hearing 
before said Board on September 17, 1969; that on said 
date the State Board of Education considered said appeal 
and denied and dismissed same, thereby exhausting all 
administrative remedies available to plaintiffs.

[20] 15

Said plan of desegregation adopted by defendants on 
July 30, 1969, is void, unconstitutional and illegal, and



—  8  —

should be so declared, set aside, and enjoined on grounds 
that the same:

(a) Is arbitrary and unreasonable.
(b) Is ultra vires the statutory authority of the 

Board of Education.
(c) Is in violation of law.
(d) Effectuates an invidious discrimination against 

plaintiffs and those similarly situated without any ra­
tional basis, and denies to them the impartial and 
complete protection of the laws guaranteed by the 
Constitution of Georgia, Art. I, Sec. I, Par. 2 (Code 
§2-102), and the equal protection and due process of 
law guaranteed by Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amend­
ment to the Constitution of the United States.

(e) Is based solely on consideration of race, and 
therefore denies to plaintiffs and those similarly situ­
ated, the impartial and complete protection of the 
laws guaranteed by the Constitution of Georgia, Art. 
I, Sec, I, Par. 2 (Code, §2-102), and the equal [21] 
protection and due process of law guaranteed by Sec­
tion 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitu­
tion of the United States.

(f) Is so unreasonable and arbitrary as to deny to 
plaintiffs the due process of law guaranteed by Aid. 
I, Sec. I, Par. 3 (Code, § 2-103) of the Constitution of 
Georgia, and Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment 
to the Constitution of the United States.

(g) Does not constitute a meaningful and effective 
means of desegregation of public schools in accord­
ance with the Constitution and laws of the United 
States as interpreted by the Supreme Court of the 
United States and the United States Court of Appeals 
for the Fifth Circuit.

(h) Offers less promise of meaningful and effective 
desegregation than other reasonable and valid alter-



—  9  —

native plans considered by the local Board and readily 
available to it.

(i) Is contrary to and in violation of Sections 401 
and 407a of the Civil Bights Act of 1964, 42 USCA, 
§§ 2000c, 2000c-6; the Elementary and Secondary [22] 
Act of 1965 as amended, 20 USCA 242, and ■§§ 409 and 
410 of the 1968 Appropriations Act for the Depart­
ment of Health, Education and Welfare, PL 90-557, 
Title IV, 1 U. S. Cong, and Adm. News, pp. 1145-46 
(1968).

(j) Is contrary to the evidence adduced before the 
Clarke County Board of Education upon administra­
tive review proceedings held on August 13, 1969.

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray:
(1) That summons issue and that defendants be served.
(2) That defendants be both temporarily and perma­

nently enjoined and restrained from further implementing 
said plan of desegregation for the 1969-70 school year, and 
from continuing to utilize and operate under said plan, 
and that defendants be mandatorily enjoined and directed 
to adopt and submit for approval of the Court a legal and 
valid plan of desegregation and pupil attendance.

(3) That the Court render declaratory judgment adjudi­
cating and declaring that the plan of desegregation 
adopted by defendants herein complained of is unconstitu­
tional, contrary to law, void, illegal and of no effect.

(4) That an order to show cause issue.
[23] (5) That plaintiffs have such other and further re­
lief as the Court may deem meet and proper.

Heard & Leverett
By: / s /  E. Freeman Leverett

Attorneys for Plaintiffs
P. 0. Box 896 
Elberton, Georgia 30635

(Verification and Acknowledgement of Service Omitted)



— 10

[27] IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
CLARKE COUNTY, GEORGIA

DEFENSES OF ALL DEFENDANTS

(Title omitted—Filed Sept. 25, 1969)

First Defense

The complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief 
can he granted, and Defendants move that same be 
dismissed.

[28] Second Defense

Defendants allege that the allegations of Plaintiffs’ 
complaint show that the action of Clarke County Board 
of Education referred to therein is a matter in regard to 
which said Board has a broad discretion; and Defendants 
allege that in exercising such discretion it is necessary 
that the Board comply with the Laws of the United States 
as contained in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 so as to 
avoid having a dual school system wherein there exists 
a separation of students of different races; and that com­
pliance with such lawrs as the same are being interpreted 
by the courts makes it mandatory that school zones or 
other bases of assignment of pupils be so arranged that 
schools are not identifiable as being white schools or 
colored schools. The facts alleged in the complaint do 
not show that Defendants have abused their discretion 
in regard to such matters, but on the contrary show that 
they have taken such action as was necessary to meet 
the requirements of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 with­
out destroying the possibility of operating the public 
school facilities of Clarke County School District in a 
feasible and economical manner.



— 11 —

Third Defense

Defendants answer the allegations of Plaintiffs’ com­
plaint as follows:

1

Paragraph 1 is admitted.

2

For want of sufficient information Defendants can
neither admit nor deny the allegations of paragraph 2.

3

For want of sufficient information Defendants can
neither admit nor deny the allegations of paragraph 3.

[29] 4

Paragraph 4 is admitted except that it is denied that 
Plaintiffs or their children live in close proximity to 
Whitehead Road Elementary School, and Defendants al­
lege that substantially all of them live more than 1 % 
miles from said school.

5

For want of sufficient information Defendants can 
neither admit nor deny the allegations of paragraph 5.

6

Paragraph 6 is admitted.

7

Paragraph 7 is admitted.



— 12

8

Answering paragraph 8, Defendants admit that a plan 
designated as “ Compromise Zoning Plan”  was adopted 
on July 30, 1969, but otherwise said paragraph is denied.

9

Paragraph 9 is denied as stated, but Defendants admit 
that under the adopted plan students are assigned to 
schools on the basis of geographic zones, and admit that 
certain areas within zones designated for students to be 
transported to more distant schools were so designated in 
order to meet the requirements of the Civil Rights Act 
of 1964 with regard to desegregation of schools, this be­
ing a logical and feasible way in which such requirements 
could be accomplished in view of the population distribu­
tion and other factors pertinent to Clarke County School 
District. Defendants further allege, in answer to said 
paragraph 9, that none of the Plaintiffs in this matter 
are involved in the areas from which students are trans­
ported as above set out.

[30] 10

Paragraph 10 is denied as stated, but Defendants admit 
that under the adopted plan students are assigned to 
schools on the basis of geographic zones, and admit that 
certain areas within zones designated for students to be 
transported to more distant schools were so designated 
in order to meet the requirements of the Civil Rights Act 
of 1964 with regard to desegregation of schools, this being 
a logical and feasible way in which such requirements 
could be accomplished in view of the population distribu­
tion and other factors pertinent to Clarke County School 
District.



—  1 3  —

11
Paragraph 11 is denied, and in further answer thereto 

Defendants allege that there is no requirement of law, 
nor is there any probability, for devising a plan imposing 
equal burdens upon all citizens, nor is Clarke County 
Board of Education permitted to let its actions be con­
trolled by the effect on residential patterns or the atti­
tudes or inclinations of the public with regard to desegre­
gation, under the provisions of the Civil Bights Act of 
1964 and the judicial construction thereof.

12

(a) Answering paragraph 12(a), Defendants admit that 
students are being bused from the community referred 
to to North Athens School, and admit that other schools 
are nearer to their residences. However, in substantially 
all of these instances the students reside more than 1% 
miles from all schools and have to be transported to what­
ever school they attend. Defendants further allege that 
there are students of differing socio-economic character­
istics in all of the schools of Clarke County School Dis­
trict.

(b) Answering paragraph 12(b), Defendants admit that 
pupils in the areas referred to in Plaintiffs’ complaint are 
being assigned and bused to a school more distant from 
their homes than certain other schools, but allege that 
[31] such assignment is necessary in order to make ade­
quate use of existing facilities and to accomplish sub­
stantial desegregation of the public schools as required 
by the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

(c) Paragraph 12(c) is denied.

(d) Paragraph 12(d) is denied as stated, but Defend­
ants admit that some of the pupils assigned to North 
Athens Elementary School live within V/2 miles of White-



- 1 4 -

head Eoad Elementary School. However, such assign­
ments are necessary for the reasons stated in answer to 
paragraphs (a) and (b) above.

(e) Answering paragraph 12(e), Defendants admit that 
the location of North Athens Elementary School is less 
desirable than some of the other school locations in the 
county, and that some of the students are from families 
of lower socio-economic characteristics than are some of 
Plaintiffs. However, Defendants cannot at the present 
time abandon this facility, nor can they, under the Civil 
Rights Act of 1964, avoid assigning of pupils of differing 
socio-economic characteristics to the same school.

(f) Paragraph 12(f) is denied as stated, but Defendants 
admit that zone lines were drawn for the purpose of 
making adequate use of the facilities available, including 
school buildings as well as transportation facilities, and 
in an effort to comply with the requirements of the Civil 
Rights Act of 1964 without causing inconvenience and 
hardship to any more of the citizens of Clarke County 
than was absolutely necessary.

(g) Paragraph 12(g) is denied.

13

Paragraph 13 is denied.

[32] u

Paragraph 14 is admitted.

1 5

Paragraph 15 is denied.



1 5  —

16

In further answer to Plaintiffs’ complaint, Defendants 
allege that Clarke County School District is operating its 
schools under the plan which has been duly adopted, that 
such plan has been accepted by the Department of Health, 
Education and Welfare, and that the plan is now in op­
eration and all schools are functioning with the minimum 
of confusion and with the cooperation of the vast majority 
of residents of Clarke County. Any disruption of this 
procedure would result in irreparable damage to school 
children in Clarke County.

Defendants further allege that any plan which may be 
devised for the operation of Clarke County School District 
and the assignment of pupils therein will result in assign­
ments which are unsatisfactory to some group or groups 
of people, and that Defendants have attempted to adopt 
the plan which will adversely affect the least number of 
people, and at the same time enable Clarke County School 
District to operate the schools as economically as possible 
and to secure funds necessary to such operation. De­
fendants, of necessity, have a broad discretion under the 
law in regard to such matters, and they have not abused 
such discretion.

Erwin, Epting, Gibson & Chilivis 
By: / s /  Eugene A. Epting 

Attorneys for Defendants

Address:
P. 0. Box 1587 

Athens, Georgia 30601

(Verification and Certificate of Service Omitted)



1 6  —

[34] IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CLARKE 
COUNTY, GEORGIA

COMPLAINT

(Title omitted—Filed September 18, 1969)

Georgia 
Clarke County

The complaint of plaintiffs above named respectfully 
shows to the Court as follows:

1
Dr. Broadus Browne, one defendant above named, is 

the President of the Board of Education of Clarke County, 
Georgia. Charles P. McDaniel, another defendant, is 
Superintendent of Schools of Clarke County, Georgia, 
and is executive secretary to the Board. All other [35] 
defendants are members of the Board of Education of 
Clarke County, Georgia. All defendants are residents of 
Clarke County, Georgia, and are subject to the jurisdiction 
of this Court.

2

Plaintiffs are parents of minor children entitled to at­
tend and who are attending elementary public schools 
operating under the jurisdiction of the Clarke County 
Board of Education during the 1969-70 school year now in 
progress.

3
Plaintiffs are citizens and taxpayers of the United 

States, the State of Georgia, and Clarke County, and other 
than Mrs. Otis Sims, Mrs. Eddie Cross and Emma Young, 
reside in the University Heights Community which is an



—  1 7  —

all-white suburban community inhabited by approximately 
200 families. Mrs. Otis Sims, Mrs. Eddie Cross and Emma 
Young reside in the Rock Springs Homes, a public housing 
development located in the south central portion of Clarke 
County, Georgia, which is inhabited predominantly by 
Negro families, of low income and socio-economic char­
acteristics.

4

University Heights is located in the southeastern part of 
said county, in close proximity to the Barnett Shoals Ele­
mentary School operated by defendants, which school was 
attended by the minor children of the University Heights 
plaintiffs during the 1968-69 school year.

[36] 5

Rock Springs Homes Community is located in the south 
central part of said county in close proximity to the 
West Broad Elementary School operated by defendants, 
which school was attended by the minor children of the 
three plaintiffs residing in said community during the 
1968-69 school year (other than the grandchildren of Mrs. 
Otis Sims, who resided in another area of the county dur­
ing said school year).

6

Other than plaintiffs Mrs. Otis Sims, Mrs. Eddie Cross 
and Emma Young, who are Negro citizens, all other plain­
tiffs are white citizens.

7

The public schools operated and maintained by defend­
ants were operated under a freedom of choice attendance 
plan for the 1965-66, 1966-67 and 1967-68 school years pur­
suant to requirements of United States Department of 
Health, Education and Welfare.



—  1 8  —

8

For the school year 1968-69, seven elementary schools 
in Clarke County, to wit: Barnett Shoals, Alps Road, 
Fowler Drive, Gaines, North Athens, Winterville and 
White Head Road, were operated on a geographic attend­
ance zone basis, and all other schools in the system, in­
cluding six other elementary schools, continued to operate 
under a freedom of choice attendance plan. Said plan was 
adopted by defendants [37] on January 29, 1968, and was 
approved by the United States Department of Health, Ed­
ucation and Welfare on or about August 26, 1968.

9

On July 30, 1969, defendants adopted a new plan of 
school desegregation entitled “ The Compromise Zoning” 
or “ Pocket Bussing”  plan for the school year 1969-70.

10

Under said plan, students nominally are assigned to 
elementary schools on the basis of geographic zones, ex­
cept that Negro students residing in “ pockets”  in five 
geographic zones are arbitrarily assigned to otherwise 
predominantly white schools outside the zones of their 
residences solely for the purpose of achieving racial bal­
ance. As an example, the children of Plaintiffs Mrs. Otis 
Sims, Mrs. Eddie Cross and Emma Young reside in the 
West Broad Elementary geographical attendance zone, 
but said children have been placed in a pocket within 
said attendance zone, and assigned and required to attend 
school in the Barrow Elementary School located outside 
said zone at a distance much farther from their homes 
than the West Broad Elementary School. In like manner, 
Negro elementary pupils residing in the other pockets are 
being assigned and bussed out of the attendance zones of



—  1 9  —

their residences and required to attend schools in other 
attendance zones at much farther distances, solely to 
achieve racial balance.

[38] 11
Said plan is not reasonably calculated to bring about 

meaningful and effective desegregation in that it does not 
impose equal burdens upon all the citizens of Clarke 
County; will have the effect of needlessly destroying and 
uprooting established residential patterns; encourages 
white displacement to avoid desegregation, and will 
quickly result in resegregation requiring the formulation 
of a new plan, thereby unnecessarily inflicting continuing 
chaos and instability upon the school patrons of Clarke 
County, Georgia.

12

Under said plan:
(a) The elementary school children of the plaintiffs re­

siding in University Heights have been assigned to the 
East Athens Elementary School which is located much 
farther from their homes than either the Barnett Shoals, 
Gaines or Barrow Elementary Schools. Also, the East 
Athens Elementary School is located in an area of Clarke 
County having completely different socio-economic char­
acteristics than the community in which said plaintiffs re­
side, whereas the Barnett Shoals, Gaines and Barrow Ele­
mentary Schools are located in areas in close proximity 
to University Heights, having substantially the same so­
cio-economic characteristics.

(b) The aforesaid pupils are being assigned and bussed 
to schools located much farther from their homes than 
other schools located closer to their homes, and this as­
signment and bussing is based solely upon considerations 
of race and to achieve racial balance.



— 20

[39] (c) East Athens and West Broad elementary schools 
have Negro enrollments of 48% and 49%, respectively, 
whereas all other elementary schools have Negro enroll­
ments ranging from 21% to only 38%.

(d) The University Heights Community, together with 
the Camelot, Oconee Heights, Tallassee Boad and West- 
gate Park commnnities constitute the only communities in 
Carke County from which children are being bussed out 
of their neighborhoods, and this bussing is based solely 
upon considerations of race, and to achieve racial balance.

(e) Elementary pupils from the University Heights 
community are the only white students in the system re­
siding outside the City of Athens which are being bussed 
into a school with a population of more than 40% Negro.

(f) Zone lines for the East Athens Elementary attend­
ance area were gerrymandered solely for the purpose of 
placing white children in East Athens to achieve racial 
balance, and to make room in Barnett Shoals for Negro 
students to be bussed therein from a pocket in the East 
Athens Elementary attendance zone so as to achieve racial 
balance at Barnett Shoals.

(g) Plaintiffs and others similarly situated, have been 
singled out and classified differently from other school 
patrons in Clarke County, Georgia, without any reason­
able or rational basis for such classification.

[40] 13

Said plan was adopted by the Clarke County Board of 
Education notwithstanding that said Board had before it 
at least two alternative plans prepared by experts engaged 
by the Board, both of which alternative plans offered 
greater and more meaningful promise of effective desegre­
gation without any likely prospect of resegregation.



— 21 —

14

Plaintiffs show that they heretofore filed Motion for 
Reconsideration with the Clarke County Board of Educa­
tion pursuant to Code «§ 32-910, as amended, and the Reg­
ulations of the State Board of Education governing such 
appeals, seeking review and recission of said plan of de­
segregation on the same allegations and grounds herein­
after set forth; that said matter came on for hearing 
before the Clarke County Board of Education on August 
13, 1969, at which time evidence and argument were pre­
sented; that after hearing same the Clarke County Board 
of Education denied and overruled said Motion by a vote 
of 7 to 2; that within the time permitted by the Rules of 
the State Board of Education governing appeals, to wit, 
on August 15, 1969, appeal to the State Board of Educa­
tion was duly filed with the Superintendent of Schools of 
Clarke County; that said appeal together with a tran­
script of evidence and proceedings were duly transmitted 
to the State Board of Education and came on for hearing 
before said Board on September 17; that on said date the 
State Board of Education considered said appeal and de­
nied and dismissed same, thereby exhausting all adminis­
trative remedies available to plaintiffs.

[41] 15

Said plan of desegregation adopted by defendants on 
July 30, 1969, is void, unconstitutional, and illegal, and 
should be so declared, set aside and enjoined on grounds 
that the same:

(a) Is arbitrary and unreasonable.

(b) Is ultra vires the statutory authority of the 
Board of Education.

(c) Is in violation of law.



2 2 __

(d) Effectuates an invidious discrimination against 
plaintiffs and those similarly situated without any 
rational basis, and denies to them the impartial and 
complete protection of the laws guaranteed by the 
Constitution of Georgia, Art, I, Sec. I, Par. 2 (Code 
<§2-102), and the equal protection and due process of 
law guaranteed by Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amend­
ment to the Constitution of the United States.

(e) Is based solely on consideration of race, and 
therefore denies to plaintiffs and those similarly situ­
ated, the impartial and complete protection of the 
laws guaranteed by the Constitution of Georgia, Art. 
I, Sec. I, Par. 2 (Code §2-102), and the equal protec­
tion and due process of law guaranteed by Section 1 
of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of 
the United States.

[42] (f) Is so unreasonable and arbitrary as to deny to
plaintiffs the due process of law guaranteed by Art, 
I, Sec. I, Par. 3 (Code §2-103), of the Constitution 
of Georgia and Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amend­
ment to the Constitution of the United States.

(g) Does not constitute a meaningful and effective 
means of desegregation of public schools in accord­
ance with the Constitution and laws of the United 
States as interpreted by the Supreme Court of the 
United States and the United States Court of Ap­
peals for the Fifth Circuit.

(h) Offers less promise of meaningful and effective 
desegregation than other reasonable and valid al­
ternative plans considered by the local board and 
readily available to it.

(i) Is contrary to and in violation of Sections 
401 and 407a of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 
USCA, §§ 2000c, 2000c-6; the Elementary and Second­



—  2 3  —

ary Act of 1965 as amended, 20 USCA 242, and §§ 409 
and 410 of the 1968 Appropriations Act for the De­
partment of Health, Education and Welfare, PL 90- 
557, Title IV, § 18, Code Cong, and Adm. News, pp. 
1145-46 (1968).

[43] (j) As to the plaintiffs, Mrs. Otis Sims, Mrs. Eddie
Cross and Emma Young, and other Negro citizens 
residing in the five pockets hereinbefore referred to, 
similarly situated, denies the impartial and complete 
protection of the laws guaranteed by the Constitution 
of Georgia, Art. I, Sec. I, Par. 2 (Code §2-102), and 
the equal protection and due process of law guaran­
teed by Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to 
the Constitution of the United States, in that said 
plan imposes greater burdens upon Negro pupils than 
upon white pupils, and seeks to eliminate all Negro 
schools having more than 50% Negro pupils, thereby 
depriving Negro pupils of the privilege of attending 
schools in which they are in the majority and can 
identify with their peer group.

(k) Is contrary to the evidence adduced before the 
Clarke County Board of Education upon administra­
tive review proceedings held on August 13, 1969.

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray:

(1) That summons issue and that defendants be served.
[44] (2) That defendants be both temporarily and per­
manently enjoined and restrained from further implement­
ing said plan of desegregation for the 1969-70 school year, 
and from continuing to utilize and operate under said 
plan, and that defendants be mandatorily enjoined and 
directed to adopt and submit for approval of the Court 
a legal and valid plan of desegregation and pupil attend­
ance.



—  2 4  —

(3) That the Court render declaratory judgment ad­
judicating and declaring that the plan of desegregation 
adopted by defendants herein complained of is unconsti­
tutional, contrary to law, void, illegal and of no effect.

(4) That an order to show cause issue.
(5) That plaintiffs have such other and further relief 

as the Court may deem meet and proper.
Heard & Leverett

By: / s /  E. Freeman Leverett
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

P. 0. Box 896 
Elberton, Georgia 30635

(Verification and Acknowledgment of Service Omitted)

[48] IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CLARKE 
COUNTY, GEORGIA

DEFENSES OF ALL DEFENDANTS

(Title omitted—Filed Sept. 25, 1969)

First Defense

The complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief 
can be granted, and Defendants move that same be dis­
missed.

Second Defense

Defendants allege that the allegations of Plaintiffs’ 
complaint show that the action of Clarke County Board 
of Education referred to therein is a matter in regard to 
which said Board has a broad discretion; and Defendants 
allege that in exercising such discretion it is necessary 
that the Board comply with the Laws of the United States 
as contained in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 so as to 
avoid having a dual school system wherein there exists a



2 5  —

separation of [49] students of different races; and that 
compliance with such laws as the same are being inter­
preted by the courts makes it mandatory that school 
zones or other bases of assignment of pupils be so ar­
ranged that schools are not identifiable as being white 
schools or colored schools. The facts alleged in the com­
plaint do not show that Defendants have abused their 
discretion in regard to such matters, but on the contrary 
show that they have taken such action as was necessary 
to meet the requirements of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 
without destroying the possibility of operating the public 
school facilities of Clarke County School District in a 
feasible and economical manner.

Third Defense

Defendants answer the allegations of Plaintiffs’ com­
plaint as follows:

1

Paragraph 1 is admitted.

2

For want of sufficient information Defendants can 
neither admit nor deny the allegations of paragraph 2.

3
For want of sufficient information Defendants can 

neither admit nor deny the allegations of paragraph 3.

4
Paragraph 4 is admitted except that it is denied that 

students residing in University Heights Community live 
in close proximity to the Barnett Shoals Elementary 
School; and in further answer to said paragraph Defend­
ants allege that the University Heights Community is



—  2 6  —

more than IY2 miles from the Barnett Shoals Elementary 
School and more than 1% miles from any school in the 
elementary school system, and therefore the students in 
University Heights [50] Community are required to be 
transported by bus to whatever school they may attend.

5
Paragraph 5 is admitted except that Defendants deny 

that Rock Spring Homes Community is in close proximity 
to West Broad Elementary School, and allege that such 
community is within IV2 miles of both West Broad Ele­
mentary School and Barrow Elementary School, and only 
slightly nearer to West Broad Elementary School than to 
Barrow Elementary School.

6
Paragraph 6 is admitted.

7
Paragraph 7 is admitted.

8

Paragraph 8 is admitted.

9
Answering paragraph 9, Defendants admit that on July 

30, 1969, the Clarke County Board of Education adopted 
a plan known as “ Compromise Zoning Plan” , but other­
wise said paragraph is denied.

10
Paragraph 10 is denied as stated, but Defendants ad­

mit that under the adopted plan students are assigned to 
schools on the basis of geographic zones, and admit that 
certain areas within zones designated for students to he



2 7  —

................  designated in order to meet the requirements
of the Civil Eights Act of 1964 with regard to desegrega­
tion of schools, this being a logical and feasible way in 
which such requirements could be accomplished in view 
of the population distribution and other factors pertinent 
to Clarke County School District. Defendants further 
allege, in answer to said paragraph 10, that none of the 
Plaintiffs in this matter are involved in [51] the areas 
from which students are transported as above set out.

11
Paragraph 11 is denied, and in further answer thereto 

Defendants allege that there is no requirement of law nor 
is there any probability for devising a plan imposing 
equal burdens upon all citizens, nor is Clarke County 
Board of Education permitted to let its actions he con­
trolled by the effect on residential patterns or the atti­
tudes or inclinations of the public with regard to desegre­
gation, under the provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 
1964 and the judicial construction thereof.

12

(a) Answering paragraph 12(a), Defendants allege that 
while it is true that children residing in University 
Heights Community assigned to East Athens Elementary 
School, and that said school is farther from their homes 
than other elementary schools, this area is more than iy 2 
miles from any school in the school system, and these 
students have to be transported to whatever school they 
attend. In the exercise of its discretion, Clarke County 
Board of Education felt that it was more practical to 
transport children to the East Athens Elementary School 
who had to be transported in any event, rather than 
transport to that school children who would otherwise 
be within walking distance of one of the other elemen­
tary schools in the school district. In further answer to



— 28 —

said paragraph, Defendants allege that while it is true 
that some of Plaintiffs and some other persons residing 
in the University Heights Community will be required to 
attend school with persons of a different socio-economic 
background, this is a condition which exists in whatever 
schools the children of such persons attend, and is an 
inevitable result of any substantial desegregation of pub­
lic schools.
[52] (b) Answering paragraph 12(b), Defendants admit 
that University Heights children are being assigned and 
bused to a school more distant from their homes than 
certain other schools, and that the inclusion of University 
Heights students in the East Athens Elementary School 
zone was necessary in order to make adequate use of exist­
ing facilities and to accomplish substantial desegregation 
of the public schools as required by the Civil Rights Act 
of 1964.

(c) Answering subparagraph (c) of paragraph 12, De­
fendants admit that the enrollments of East Athens and 
West Broad Elementary Schools include negro students 
in a higher percentage than other schools, but allege that 
all schools are filled to approximate capacity and that in 
order to change the ratio of negro and white students it 
would be necessary to engage in further busing of white 
students into these schools and busing of negro students 
who live in closer proximity to such schools into a dif­
ferent neighborhood in order to make room in the East 
Athens and West Broad Elementary Schools for such 
additional white students.

(d) Subparagraph (d) of paragraph 12 is denied as 
stated, but Defendants admit that they have tried to ar­
range school zones so as to make full use of available 
facilities, keep transportation of students to a minimum, 
and to accomplish substantial desegregation as required 
by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and at the same time to



avoid causing unnecessary hardships on any of the ele­
mentary students or their parents.

(e) Subparagraph (e) of paragraph 12 is denied as 
stated, and Defendants allege that in view of the loca­
tion of schools in Clarke County pupils in certain neigh­
borhoods have to be transported by bus to the schools 
which they attend, and it is necessary that such students 
be bused to schools which have adequate facilities to ac­
commodate them, and that it is [53] not possible to as­
sign all students to schools nearest their homes and still 
make adequate use of the facilities, regardless of the prob­
lem of having to meet desegregation requirements, and it 
becomes even more impossible when the requirements of 
the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the regulations in regard 
thereto have to be taken into consideration.

(f) Subparagraph (f) of paragraph 12 is denied as 
stated, but Defendants admit that zone lines were drawn 
for the purpose of making adequate use of the facilities 
available, including school buildings as well as trans­
portation facilities, and in an effort to comply with the 
requirements of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 without 
causing inconvenience and hardship to any more of the 
citizens of Clarke County than was absolutely necessary.

(g) Subparagraph (g) of paragraph 12 is denied.

13
Paragraph 13 is denied.

—  2 9  —

14
Paragraph 14 is admitted.

15

Paragraph 15 is denied.



—  3 0  —

16

In further answer to Plaintiffs’ complaint, Defendants 
allege that Clarke County School District is operating its 
schools under the plan which has been duly adopted, that 
such plan has been accepted by the Department of Health, 
Education and Welfare, that the plan is now in opera­
tion and all schools are functioning with the minimum 
of confusion and with the cooperation of the vast major­
ity of residents of Clarke County. Any disruption of this 
procedure would result in confusion and chaos in the 
educational system, and would result in irreparable dam­
age to school children in Clarke County.

[54] Defendants further allege that any plan which may 
be devised for the operation of Clarke County School 
District and the assignment of pupils therein will result 
in assignments which are unsatisfactory to some group 
or groups of people, and that Defendants have attempted 
to adopt the plan which will adversely affect the least 
number of people, and at the same time enable Clarke 
County School District to operate the schools as eco­
nomically as possible and to secure funds necessary to 
such operation. Defendants, of necessity, have a broad 
discretion under the law in regard to such matters, and 
they have not abused such discretion.

Wherefore, Defendants pray that Plaintiffs’ complaint 
be dismissed and that the prayers thereof be denied.

Address:

Erwin, Epting, Gibson & Chilivis 
By: Eugene A. Epting 

Attorneys for Defendants

P. 0. Box 1587 
Athens, Georgia 30601

(Verification and Certificate of Service Omitted)



—  3 1  —

[ 1 0 ]  C L A R K E  S U P E R I O R  C O U R T

Joseph Baressi, Jr., et al.,

vs.
Plaintiffs,

►
Civil Action 
No. 20,453.

Dr. Broadus Browne, et al.,
Defendants. __

Paul L. Wood, et al.,

vs.
Plaintiffs,

Dr. Broadus Browne, et al.,
Defendants.

Civil Action 
No. 20,454.

Paul L. Wood, et al.,

vs.
Petitioners,

State Board of Education, et al.,
Respondents. _

Civil Action 
No. 20,455.

ORDER OF CONSOLIDATION

(Filed Oct. 24, 1969)

Pursuant to agreement of counsel, and without prejudice 
to the contention of the State Board of Education and the 
Clarke County Board of Education that petition for re­
view under the Georgia Administrative Procedure Act is 
not an available remedy, the above three cases are hereby 
consolidated for trial and determination, and the tran­
script of record and proceedings transmitted to the Court 
under Case No. 20455 is hereby filed and ordered to be 
made a part of the records in Case Numbers 20453 and 
20454.

This October 24, 1969.

James Barrow
Judge, Clarke Superior Court



[90] CLARKE SUPERIOR COURT

JUDGMENT

(Title Omitted—Filed Dec. 5, 1969)

The above referred to cases having been by consent of 
connsel for all parties consolidated for trial, and having 
been by consent of counsel for all parties tried on the 
record of proceedings before the State Board of Education 
in Civil Action No. 20455 and on additional evidence sub­
mitted on October 24, 1969 in this Court, after giving 
consideration to the evidence, the arguments of counsel, 
and the briefs submitted by counsel, the following findings 
are made:

1

With respect to Civil Action No. 20455, the Court finds 
that it is without jurisdiction of the subject matter of that 
action because the subject of inquiry before the Clarke 
County Board of Education and the State Board of Educa­
tion was the regulation of [91] schools and educational 
institutions, which matter is specifically excluded from the 
provision of the Georgia Administrative Procedure Act, 
pursuant to which the appeal in Civil Action No. 20455 
was made to this Court.

2

With respect to Civil Action No. 20453 and Civil Action 
No. 20454 the Court finds that in some of the elementary 
schools operated by these Defendants breakfast is made 
available to the children attending and in some of the 
elementary schools operated by these Defendants breakfast 
is not made available to the children attending; and that 
this distinction affects one or more of the plaintiffs in



—  3 3

these law suits. The Court further finds that this distinc­
tion constitutes an invidious discrimination against the 
children of one or more of the Plaintiffs in these law suits.

3

The Court further finds with respect to these cases that 
there is an immediate and affirmative obligation on the 
part of the Board of Education of Clarke County and its 
responsible officials “ . . . to terminate dual school systems 
at once and to operate now and hereafter only unitary 
schools . . . ”  See Griffin v. School Board, 377 U. S. 218; 
Green v. County School Board of New Kent County, 391 
U. S. 430; Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Educa­
tion, No. 632 in the Supreme Court of the United States, 
decided October 29, 1969.

4
The Court further finds that the Clarke County Board 

of Education and its responsible officials have [92] made 
a good faith effort to meet this obligation.

5

The Court further finds that in making this effort the 
children of certain Plaintiffs in these law suits who would 
otherwise attend neighborhood elementary schools in 
proximity to their residences are bussed to other neighbor­
hood elementary schools which are not in proximity to 
their residences.

6
The Court further finds that at least at the present time 

the bussing of these students to neighborhood elementary 
schools which are not in proximity to their residences is 
a necessary consequence of the effective implementation of 
the mandate contained in the decisions of the Supreme 
Court of the United States above referred to.



—  3 4  —

Wherefore, it is ordered and adjudged as follows:

1. The Defendants are enjoined until the further order 
of the Court from serving breakfast at any elementary 
schools operated by them after the opening of school fol­
lowing the Christmas holidays of this year unless similar 
breakfasts are served or offered to be served at all ele­
mentary schools operated by the Defendants.

2. The Defendants are required to present to the Court 
on or before June 1, 1970 a revised plan to desegregate the 
elementary schools operated by them; and, if such plan 
embodies the concept of neighborhood elementary schools 
and also embodies the concept of [93] bussing “ pockets” 
of children to neighborhood elementary schools outside of 
the neighborhood to which they would be geographically 
assigned, the Defendants are required at the time said 
plan of desegregation is presented to the Court to be pre­
pared to show affirmatively that such action is necessary 
by reason of requirements of the Federal Constitution or 
of Federal legal requirements or of economics or by reason 
of a combination of such factors.

3. Jurisdiction is retained of this case for the purpose 
of assuring compliance with the foregoing paragraph of 
this judgment.

4. Civil Action No. 20455 is dismissed in accordance 
with the finding that the Court is without jurisdiction of 
the appeal thereof.

5. The Plaintiffs in Civil Action No. 20453 and Civil 
Action No. 20454 are denied an injunction at the present 
time.

This December 4, 1969.

James Barrow
Judge of the Superior Court of 

Clarke County



3 5  —

AMENDED FINDINGS

(Title Omitted—Filed Dee. 5, 1969)

The Court having heretofore on December 4, 1969 
entered findings, order and judgment in the above referred 
to cases, now therefore, the Court, upon its own motion 
and as a matter of clarification, amends Paragraphs 5 and 
6 of the findings to read as follows:

“ 5
The Court further finds that in making this effort 

the children of certain Plaintiffs in these law suits 
residing in designated geographic ‘ pockets’ who 
would otherwise attend neighborhood elementary 
schools in proximity to their residences are bussed to 
other neighborhood elementary schools which are not 
in proximity to their residences; and that the children 
of certain Plaintiffs in these law [95] suits residing 
in designated geographic ‘ pockets’ who would other­
wise attend neighborhood elementary schools in prox­
imity to their residences are required to walk to other 
neighborhood elementary schools which are further 
removed from their residences.

6
The Court further finds that at least at the present 

time the assignment of these students residing in 
designated geographic ‘ pockets’ to neighborhood ele­
mentary schools which are not in proximity to their 
residences is a necessary consequence of the effective 
implementation of the mandate contained in the de­
cisions of the Supreme Court of the United States 
above referred to.”

[94] CLARK E SUPERIOR COURT



—  3 6  —

The Court, upon its own motion and as a matter of 
clarification amends Paragraph 2 of the order and judg­
ment to read as follows:

“ 2. The Defendants are required to present to the 
Court on or before June 1, 1970 a revised plan to 
desegregate the elementary schools operated by them; 
and, if such plan embodies the concept of neighbor­
hood elementary schools and also embodies the con­
cept of assigning ‘ pockets’ of children to neighbor­
hood elementary schools outside of the neighborhood 
to which they would be geographically assigned, the 
Defendants are required at the time said plan of de­
segregation is presented to the Court to be prepared 
to show affirmatively that such action is necessary by 

[96] reason of requirements of the Federal Constitution 
or of Federal legal requirements or of economics or by 
reason of a combination of such factors.”

This December 5, 1969.

James Barrow
Judge of the Superior Court 

of Clarke County

TRANSCRIPT OF TESTIMONY IN 
CLARKE SUPERIOR COURT

[103] The Court: It has been stipulated, as I understand 
it, that the two injunction and declaratory judgment cases 
will be tried on the basis of the record before the County 
Board of Education and additional evidence that will be 
submitted this morning.—Is that correct?

Mr. Leverett: That is correct.

Mr. Epting: Yes, sir, that is correct.



3 7  —

ROBERT MORAN,
being duly sworn, testified.

Cross-Examination, by Mr. Leverett

Q. Your name is Robert Moran? A. Right.
Q. What is your title and occupation ? A. I am the Busi­

ness Manager for the Clarke County School District.
Q. You are the same Robert Moran who testified before 

the County Board of Education in this matter on August 
13th of this year? A. That is correct.

Q. You were served with a subpoena requiring you to 
bring certain things into court? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Do you have those things called for by the subpoena? 
A. Yes, sir.

Q. First, do you have the break down showing the num­
ber of negro and white pupils in each of the elementary 
schools of Clarke County? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Mr. Moran, I hand you Plaintiff’s Exhibit P-A, and 
I ask you if that is an accurate break down of the school 
enrollments of the elementary schools in the Clarke County 
School District broken down according to white and negro 
pupils? A. Yes, sir, this is as of the last day of the first 
school month.

The Court: Q. Last day of September? [104] A. No, sir, 
the school month ends around the 5th, 6th or 7th of 
October.

Q. Mr. Moran, I see you have the percentage figures over 
here in the extreme right corner? A. Yes, sir.

Q. What is the total enrollment of Clarke County School 
District this year, according to the last figure you have? 
A. The actual total enrollment is 10,877.

Q. And that is broken down between white and negro? 
A. Yes, sir, 7,333 whites and 3,544 negroes.



—  3 8  —

Q. As far as the elementary schools, do you show a total 
down here of white and negro students in the elementary 
schools? A. For grades 1 through 6, yes, sir—4,013 whites 
and 1,977 negroes, a total of 5,990.

Q. The elementary schools of Clarke County, are they 
just grades 1 through 6? A. We do have some mentally 
retarded groups in these schools who cannot be classified 
by grades.

Q. But you do consider the Clarke County School Sys­
tem 1 through 6 as elementary, and 7 through 9 as Junior 
High? A. That is correct.

Q. In other words this System is divided on the basis 
of Elementary, Junior High, and Senior High? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Mr. Moran, what is the capacity of the Gaines 
School? A. Well, we created class rooms that were not 
there last year. I believe we created three class rooms in 
the auditorium, what was formerly the auditorium. With 
these class rooms that were created, the capacity should 
now be 480 I believe.

Q. You have 459 pupils there? A. Right.
Q. Isn’t it true, Mr. Moran, that this sudden enrollment 

in Gaines is the result of white pupils moving into that 
area as the result of this school plan? A. Sir, I know not 
the reason for their moving there, but we did have more 
children in Gaines than we had anticipated this year.

Q. It is also true, is it not, that Gaines has the smallest
[105] number of negro pupils than any elementary school 
in the Clarke County School District? A. This is also true, 
yes, sir.

Q. And isn’t it also true that Gaines has a higher en­
rollment of white students than the Clarke County School 
System had projected? A. Yes, that is true.

Q. Do you have figures showing how many pupils are 
actually being bussed from the University Heights area



—  3 9  —

to the East Athens Elementary School—I believe you 
projected 134 when you testified back before the County 
Board.

The Court: Q. East Athens Elementary School is what 
use to be the new negro school across the river, is that 
correct? A. Yes, sir, that is correct.

Q. Do you know whether or not it was more or less than 
you had projected for? A. I am sorry I don’t know, but 
I would gather that it would be less.

Q. Do you know why that is? A. I believe that some of 
the white students who last year lived in the University 
Heights area would not be there this year.

Q. Do you happen to know how many elementary pupils 
are being bussed or transferred from the Camelot, West- 
gate Park and Oconee Heights and the Tallassee Road? 
A. Once again, I don’t have that information.

Q. Are the students at the elementary schools in Clarke 
County School District being traded for ability groups 
for the purposes of class room supervision? A. I am sorry, 
but as Business Manager I am not familiar with that.

Q. Mr. McDaniel is here, is he not? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is breakfast being served to the students at East 

Athens? A. I think in the other proceeding I established 
I did not know anything about that.
[106] Q. You do not know of your own knowledge? A. No, 
sir.

Q. Did you also bring with you, pursuant to this sub­
poena, a map showing the attendance zone line of the 
elementary schools? A. I have the large map that was 
mounted on the wall of the Board’s room procedure, but 
I also have small maps by the individual school districts.

Q. Let me ask you this—were any of the attendance 
zone lines changed for either the East Athens, the Bar­
nett Shoals, the North Athen, or the Whitehead Road



—  4 0  —

Schools subsequent to the hearing before the County 
Board on August 13th! A. None have been changed at 11.

The Court: May I clarify something by a question of 
counsel!

Mr. Leverett: Yes, sir.

The Court: Exactly what are you asking the Court to 
do for you in these two declaratory judgments?

Mr. Leverett: To enjoin the County Board of Education 
from further enforcing this school desegregation plan, 
and to require it by mandatory injunction to submit a new 
plan that meets constitutional and legal requirements.

Q. (Mr. Leverett) Mr. Moran, I hand you a group of 
documents marked Plaintiff’s Exhibits B, C, D, E, and F 
which purports to be respectively the attendance zone line 
of Whitehead Road School, Gaines School, North Avenue 
School, East Athens School, and Barnett Shoals School 
and ask you if those are accurate representations or maps 
of what they purport to portray? A. I am afraid on the 
North Avenue School the map does not show the entire 
school zone, it shows mainly the internal portion. On the 
other maps I believe they show a majority of the school 
zone.

Q. Mr. Moran, I hand you Plaintiff’s Exhibit G and ask 
you if that is an accurate representation of the zone line 
of all the elementary school districts under the compro­
mise plan that is in effect during the current school year! 
A. Yes, sir, that is an accurate map.
[107] Q. A\ ould you mark right here (indicating)—put a 
circle around this area that dips down into the Whitehead 
Road? A. (Witness drawing circle on map).

Q. That area where you have drawn that circle includes 
Merlin Drive and Kings Circle, does it not? A. Yes, sir.

Q. AYhy did the zone line drop down from the North 
Avenue School District and sort of carve out a little ditch



in the Whitehead Road Elementary School District? A. 
Sir, actually it did not drop down, it follows the mile and 
half mark from the Whitehead School in that area. In 
other words, these streets are beyond the mile and a half 
from Whitehead School.

Q. Isn’t it true that the reason the line is distorted is 
there are several negro pupils living in this little protru­
sion right here (indicating), and one or two right here 
that you wanted to include in the Whitehead School? A. 
That is absolutely incorrect.

Q. Aren’t there some negroes living in the Whitehead 
District? A. Yes, there are some negroes living in the 
Whitehead zone, they are right in the heart of it, right in 
here (indicating).

Q. Why does the zone line on the North Athens School 
District, doesn’t it cross over the Jefferson Road? A. 
The mile and half from Whitehead?

Q. No, sir. Doesn’t the zone line in North Athens School 
District, right here, doesn’t it go along one side of the 
Jefferson Road for a distance and then crosses over the 
other side and go right down the other side of the Jeffer­
son Road? A. It comes up to the mile and a half mark 
on the Jefferson Road and then it does cross over.

The Court: Q. To include residents on the Jefferson 
Road on the right side as you go North? A. That is 
right. All these residences here are within the mile and a 
half.

Q. (Mr. Leverett) Is that the only reason that line sud­
denly jumps across------

[108] The Court: Let me ask a question, I am not familiar 
with the record made before the County Board. What did 
Mr. Moran have to do with the drawing of these lines, 
what did he have to do about how they were drawn?

—  4 1 -



—  4 2  —

Mr. Leverett: Your Honor, he is the Officer—he and Dr. 
Booth and two Board members actually constructed these 
zone lines, according to testimony.

A. (Mr. Moran) Mr. Leverett, to get at what I think 
you are trying to get at—when we were drawing the lines, 
the Whitehead line was first drawn as its fullest mile and 
a half mark. When we found wTe had too many white chil­
dren using this mile and a half, we had too many white 
children aligned for the Whitehead School so we had to 
remove the white children then, so then we dropped the 
line hack.

The Court: Q. On what criterion did you determine that 
you had too many children—white or colored? A. Judge 
Barrow, we were following the criterion set up by the 
Board of Education.

Q. What criteria were they—a maximum and a minimum 
for each Elementary School? A. That is right, percentage 
wise.

Mr. Everett: Your Honor, this aspect of the case was 
not fully developed, Mr. Epting and I stipulated these 
people into the case after the hearing before the County 
Board, so I am having to tie up one or two points.

The Court: What people?
Mr. Leverett: The Camolot, West Gate, Park, Tallassee 

Road, and so forth.

Mr. Moran: I believe we did cover it in the proceedings.

Q. Yes, sir, let me ask you this question. Isn’t the reason 
that the North Athens zone line drops down south—this 
way, right above northernmost extremity of the Whitehead 
Road School zone and then goes down along the western 
side of the Whitehead School Road and goes out—the rea­
son that is distorted is to pick up white pupils in this area 
over here in the extreme western part of North [109]



—  4 3  —

Athens zone in order to achieve the 20/40 racial balance 
in North Athens School? A. Are you asking why they 
were excluded from Whitehead or why they were included 
in North Athens ?

Q. Why they were included in North Athens? A. We 
had to pick up white children for North Athens, and this 
was the only spot, the best spot to pick up white children 
for North Athens.

Q. By the same token you had to circumscribe the at­
tendance area of Whitehead Road as far as white pupils 
were concerned so as to make room in that school for some 
negro pupil that was pocketed out of the Oglethorpe 
School District and College Avenue? A. Yes.

Q. You have two pockets going to that area? A. Right.
Q. It is true, is it not, Mr. Moran, that the zone line in 

the original neighborhood school plan were more compact 
—by that I mean not spread out quite so much and 
scrambling around in order to achieve racial balance?— 
Those lines in that plan were more compact within that 
definition than the ones in this defendants’ zone map? A. 
Yes, sir, I believe you could safely say this.

Q. Are all of the negro pupils that are pocketed in the 
various attendance zones, I  believe they are all bussed out 
except those in West Broad. Is that right? A. All the 
pockets except the ones going to—or the pocket going to 
Barrow School will he bussed.

Q. Would all of those negro pupils that are pocketed, do 
all of them reside in walking distance of the school sit­
uated in the attendance area of their residence? A. Yes.

Q. One last question—one or two weeks ago didn’t you 
have a bus wreck out on one of the highways? A. Yes, sir, 
we did.
[110] Q. That involved pupils that were being bussed 
from an area previously served by the Whitehead Road



—  4 4

School but who, under this plan, was being bussed into 
North Athens! A. They were previously bussed to White- 
head, under this plan they were bussed to North Athens.

DR. CHARLES McDANIEL,
being duly sworn, testified.

Cross-Examination, by Mr. Leverett

Q. What is your name? A. Charles McDaniel.
Q. You are Superintendent of the Clarke County School 

District? A. I am.
Q. Dr. McDaniel, I will ask you do you happen to know 

yourself how many pupils are being bussed from the Uni­
versity Heights to East Athens Area? A. No, sir, I don’t.

Q. Are the students at the Elementary Schools during 
the current year being tracked or placed upon some basis 
of ability grouping? A. Some students are operating un­
der ability grouping arrangement.

Q. What do you use as the criteria?—Achievement 
test? A. A number of items including the achievement 
test.

The Court: Q. Is it based on the location of the school 
in any respect? A. No, sir.

Q. (Mr. Leverett) Are all of the Elementary Schools 
being—whatever term you call it, do you call it ability 
group or tracking? A. I would just call it grouping, be­
cause it is not necessarily ability grouping nor is it neces­
sarily tracking. Many times it is involved in one teacher 
class—one teacher may be teaching groups of three or 
four groups of reading within the same class.

Q. You don’t group them in putting all the slow learn­
ers into one class and all the fast learning in another class?
[ I l l ]  A. I don’t believe so. There may be some isolated



—  4 5

instances of this, but for all practical purposes I don’t 
believe so.

The Court: Q. Is the procedure the same in each Ele­
mentary School? A. Basically so; however it is inter­
preted by principals and teachers differently.

Q. (Mr. Leverett) Is there more or less of this group­
ing going on at East Athens and maybe West Broad than 
at any other school? A. I just do not know.

Q. Is breakfast being served in East Athens? A. I 
understand it is.

Q. Is that served to the white students that are being 
bussed in there from the University Heights area? A. I 
have not been there in the morning during breakfast, 
but I understand that it is.

Q. What about the negro students from the East Athens 
area that are pocketed and being bussed out to the Bar­
nett Shoals School, and some, I believe, are being bussed 
to Gaines School—are they given breakfast at the Gaines 
and Barnett Shoals Schools? A. No, sir, as I understand 
it they are not.

Q. The reason for that is the intitlement of a particular 
person to receive this under Title 1 depends upon the in­
titlement of the school rather than in the individual? A. 
That is part of the reason. The demand for breakfast 
in the wisdom of the school would be more important 
than this.

The Court: Q. In other words, breakfast is served at 
certain schools and not at others? A. That is right.

Q. What determines which will serve breakfast? A. 
The number of students who want and need the breakfast. 
This is a Federal supported program. There is still some 
money for breakfast program in other schools available 
at State level. In many of the schools the individuals 
are not interested in having breakfast.



—  4 6  —

[112] Q. How does serving breakfast affect the bussing 
schedule! A. It is not affected.

Q. When do they eat! A. They eat just before school 
begins. I believe at East Athens they start serving break­
fast at 7:30 and eat up until school begins at 8 o ’clock.

Q. When does your last bus get there! A. I am not 
sure. The only people bussed into East Athens are maybe 
two busses from University Heights.

Q. (Mr. Leverett) Dr. McDaniel, the negro pupils that 
are being bussed out of East Athens and West Broad and 
Oglethorpe areas, and who are bussed out and transferred 
to the other outlying area schools, it amounts to, does 
it not, that as the result of this desegregation plan they 
are being denied breakfast they would have received if 
they had been permitted to remain in the school serving 
the attendance zone of their residence, aren’t they! A. 
Yes, I think so. But on the other hand if they had lived 
in an area where there was no breakfast served—we 
have many disadvantaged children who live in an area 
where there is no breakfast being served.

The Court: Let me ask a question first:—Is one of the 
appropriate remedies in this case, in the event the Court 
did not enjoin the desegregation plan, would it be the 
desire of counsel the uniformity in breakfast and any 
other disparity that may be evidenced and shown to 
exist!

Mr. Leverett: Judge, our position is this, that the plan 
as a whole is illegal and unconstitutional because it is 
arbitrary, discriminatory in violation of the 14th amend­
ment, and it is in violation of the Statutes in the Civil 
Rights Act, the F C A Amendment, the appropriations 
Division. We are not seeking piece meal relief as far as 
lunches. We simply show that as a part of the over all 
picture.



[113] The Court: You would consider that as an inap­
propriate remedy from the Court?

Mr. Leverett: I will put it this way, Your Honor, I 
don’t say that the Court doesn’t have authority to do 
that, I don’t say that we could not answer that; I am 
simply saying we are not seeking that—that is not the 
objective of this case.

The Court: Q. Dr. McDaniel, what effect Avould it have 
if the Court should require that there be uniformity of 
breakfast in the Elementary Schools in Clarke County— 
would that be within or without your budget—would i’t 
create small problems or large problems? A. I am not 
sure whether it would be great or small. But that would 
mean in all schools where we are not having breakfast we 
would have to bring in lunch room people. I think in 
places parents are not interested in their children having 
breakfast at school; they feed them at home, I think it 
would not be accepted in some places. Of course, it 
would be an expense item, but you have expense items 
with everything.

Q. (Mr. Leverett) Dr. McDaniel, in the construction of 
these pocket lines, the pockets of the Negro pupils that 
were to be transferred out of the districts of their resi­
dence and required to attend other schools, there was no 
effort made, was there, to select the Negro pupils who 
were of such social and economic status that they would 
not be needful of breakfast in these outlying areas schools 
to which they were going? A. No.

Direct Examination, by Mr. Epting
Q. Dr. McDaniel, do you happen to know whether any 

of the plaintiffs in either of these suits are parents of 
children who are involved in any of these pockets where 
their children go to school where their children don’t

—  4 7  —



—  4 8  —

receive breakfast! [114] A. I don’t know of any. There 
are three plaintiffs, namely, Mrs. Cross, Mrs. Young and 
Mrs. Sims that reside in West Broad School District 
whose children are being pocketed and required to walk 
to the Barrow School.

Q. And breakfast is being served at West Broad School 
and not at Barrow School. Is that right? A. Yes.

The Court: That is so stipulated.
Mr. Epting: But I would like for it to go further but 

other than those three there are no persons who are plain­
tiffs in these suits who are affected by this.

Mr. Leverett: That is correct.
Mr. Leverett: Your Honor, at this time we tender in 

evidence Plaintiffs’ Exhibits A through G.
The Court: They are admitted without objection.

Mr. Leverett: We also tender for the purpose of these 
injunctions the transcript that is in.

The Court: I think it has been stipulated that it is in.

Mr. Epting: I offer no evidence, Your Honor.



CL4WE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 
ACTIVE EMROtUENf

LAST DAT OF Th£ FIRST MO I f f  H OF S Q W O L  YEAR

G rad** 1 — 6 G races  7 - 9 . . Grades }0  - j i  . H k 7oTal P erce n fe q o
Wh i j e N«ejto T o t * ) W hite T ota l V/h (< /^ j T o ta l *h i U T o ta l WhjTF W«9fO T o te !, White f i g j r e >

Alps Read S c b v o l 531 154 6*5 531 154 T fe i 227
i tM -i tF  Sk t * U  S tb 'v d 4 28 179 607 423 179 677 71* 29?
Iteviu C. garr** / School 330 151 404 7 5 10 337 i 5 / /,o /f 6 8* 32 S
Chase s t r e e t  School 255 152 407 5 7 12 260 1 l-2 9 419 62* 381
College Arenye Scftnol 155 113 269 156 1 13 269 58* 42%
f is t  ArhtflS School 250 242 502 260 242 SO/ 52* i& L
fow ler D rive School 267 113 335 7 1 8 274 1 !9 %. • 70% 30*
(Yi't S e k v e i 373 € 6 459 373 86 <S9 81% 19?
Wtr.lk A-fhfdS School 259 157 416 5 13 23 264 175 439 m 40?
Ogje+horpe Avenue School 353 150 51 1 353 153 q » *.

<>% 31?
Vest $road S tre e t  S ch ool 172 2 1 2 384 172 2 1 2 3^'r 4S % 55*
Wlifehead Read School 419 152 571 10 4 14 429 156 SOS i y ; 27%
V in terv ille  School 2 1 0 10 0 310 ■ 2 1 0 100 310 6 s:: j x S

S ublet*! < 7 -t ) 4 0 1 3 1977 5990

CI4 rice, jun i o r  School1 9 8 3 362 13 49 9 S } 362 O V T 7 3 ?u Z T f *
///Ism * * TI J u n io r  H igh  Sc he at 528 327 855 9 23 37. S37 3 /0 80? 4 1 ? X f l .

t'yrwJa-niejc y:\jh St h e a i 3 )5 179 498 1 2 7 19 35) l? £ 517 6  45> 3 i> %

S u lrU ig  | . ( ? - y ) 1830 86S 269 S

^ U n iH i^ h  School 1409 |20 1529 16 ~0  - 16 1425 12 0 >r<rr 97f. «■ ?*
?yvxr^ ~ /l«m .S tli3 h S ch ool - 0 -  486 466 - 0 - 19 19 - 0 - S<3* — s soy,

& t o 4 * (  (T O .| l> 1409 606 2015

'h t j t l p J t d e - ' t i o h  c*7vt«r JO ?t 31 to if

St/ b in t*  t (hfl?)
i i - i i J Z l

(jft-'vd ’T oh »li
7 3 3 3 3 $ y M  t t > 8 ! 7 C l ? > 3 3 * .



W
H

IT
EH

EA
D

 
RO

AD
 

SC
H

O
O

L



5 1  —

The Whitehead Road zone includes the following streets 
or roads:

1. South Homewood Drive (All)
2. Jefferson Road (From Crescent Road to Lavender 

Road)
3. Lavender Road (From Merlin Drive to Turkey Creek)

4. Tallassee Road (From Lester Drive to Whitehead 
Road)

5. Whitehead Road (All)
6. Roberts Road (All)
7. All interior streets or roads in the zone not specifically 

mentioned
8. Pocket Number One:

(a) Odd Street (200 thru 500 blocks)
(b) Third Street (200 thru 500 blocks)
(c) Pearl Street (200 block only)
(d) Johns Street (All)
(e) Griffin Street (All)
(f) Wateroak Street (All)
(g) First Street (300 thru 400 blocks)
(h) Bray Street (All)
(i) Fourth Street (From Bray Street to Trail Creek)
(j) Trail Creek Street (From First Street to Trail 

Creek)
9. Pocket Number Two:

(a) Pauldoe Circle (All)
(b) Pauldoe Street (Apartments 420A, 420B, 450A, 

450B, 450C, 450D, 480A and 480B)

[117] W hitehead Road Elementary School



GAINES SCHCGl 'w "O G . GIV rr ;>.o r~«



5 3  —

The Gaines zone includes the following streets or roads:
1. Lexington Road (From 2198 Lexington Road to a 

point .3 of a mile east of intersection with Whit Davis 
Road)

2. Gaines School Road (All)
3. Cherokee Road (From Lexington Road to Beaver Dam 

Road)
4. Southern portion of Airport Road, to V2 mile of Win- 

terville Road
5. Whit Davis Road (From Lexington Road to a point 

.3 of a mile south of Lexington Road)
6. Barnett Shoals Road (1600 thru 1800 blocks)
7. All interior streets or roads in the zone not specifically 

mentioned
8. Pocket Zone:

(a) Arch Street (300 thru 500 blocks)
(b) Vine Street (500 thru 600 blocks)
(c) Dublin Street (200 block only)
(d) Gressom Street (All)
(e) Nellie B Avenue (All)
(f) Cone Drive (All)
(g) Winterville Road (600 thru 900 blocks)

[119] Gaines Elementary School





—  5 5

The North Athens zone includes the following streets or 
roads:

1. Commerce Road (All)

2. Holman Road (All)

3. Old Commerce Road (All)

4. Sandy Creek Drive (All)
5. Conrad Drive (From Hobson Avenue to Greenview 

Road)
6. Hobson Avenue (All)

7. Water Street (800 thru 900 blocks)

8. Ruth Drive (All)

9. Ruth Street (100 block only)

10. North Avenue (100 block only)

11. Madison Heights (All)
12. Strickland Avenue (100 block thru 222 Strickland 

Avenue)

13. Marlin Street (All)

14. Grace Street (All)

15. Elm Street (All)

16. Cleveland Avenue (100 block only)

17. Standard Oil Street (All)

18. Atlanta Avenue (All)

19. Athens Avenue (All)

20. Macon Avenue (All)

21. Augusta Avenue (200 thru 400 blocks)

22. Savannah Avenue (200 thru 300 blocks)

[121] N orth Athens Elem entary School



—  5 6  —

23. Stevens Street (All)
24. Forbstein Alley (All)
25. Barber Street (600 thru 1000 blocks)

26. Oneta Street (From Barber Street to Chase Street)
27. North Chase Street (1200 thru 1400 blocks)

28. Jefferson Road (Section 1: From North By-Pass to 
Crescent Road; Section 2: From Lavender Road to 
county line)

29. Crescent Road (All)

30. Jefferson River Road (All)

31. Camak Drive (All)
32. Ambler Road (All)

33. Lavender Road (Section 1: From Jefferson Road to 
Merlin Drive; Section 2: From Turkey Creek to Tal- 
lassee Road)

34. Tallassee Road (From Lester Drive to county line)
35. John Collier Road (All)

36. Oak Grove Road (All)

37. All interior streets or roads in the zone not spe­
cifically mentioned.



EAST ATHENS SCHOOL



—  5 8  —

The East Athens zone includes the following streets or 
roads:

1. South Poplar Street (All)

2. South Peter Street (All)

3. North Peter Street (From Vine Street to Spring Val­
ley Road)

4. Moreland Avenue (200 thru 300 blocks)

5. West Carver Street (All)

6. Carver Drive (All)

7. McKinley Drive (All)

8. Fairview Street (All)

9. Warren Street (All)

10. Vine Street (200 thru 400 blocks)

11. Arch Street (200 block only)

12. East Broad Street (1400 block only)

13. Herring Street (All)

14. North and South Derby Street (All)

15. Burney Street (All)

16. Tabernacle (All)

17. Little Oak Street (All)

18. Harper Street (All)

19. Mulberry (All)

20. Oak Street (All)

21. Oconee Street (400 thru 1600 blocks)

22. Little Street (All)

[123] East Athens E lem entary School



—  5 9

23. Apple Drive (All)

24. South Bailey Street (All)

25. North Bailey Street (100 and 200 blocks)

26. Winterville Road (Section 1: 100 and 200 blocks; 
Section 2: 1000 thru 1200 blocks)

27. Spring Valley Road (From Winterville Road to Peter 
Street)

28. Lexington Road (1500 block thru 2195 Lexington 
Road)

29. Hughes Street (All)

30. O’Kelly Road (From Winterville Road to a point .2 
of a mile from Lexington Road)

31. Barnett Shoals Road (From Lexington Road thru 
1500 block)

32. Johnson Drive (All)

33. College Station Road (900 thru 2300 blocks)

34. College Circle (All)

35. University Circle (All)

36. Watson Circle (All)

37. All interior streets or roads in the zone not spe­
cifically mentioned





—  6 1

The Barnett Shoals zone includes the following streets 
or roads:

1. Will Hunter Road (All)
2. West Whitehall Road (700 thru 900 blocks)

3. East Whitehall Road (All)

4. Barnett Shoals Road (From 1850 Barnett Shoals 
Road to county line)

5. Bellmont Road (All)

6. Morton Road (All)
7. Lexington Road (From a point .3 of a mile east of 

Whit Davis Road to county line)

8. Double Bridges Road (All)

9. Dunlap Road (All)

10. Whit Davis Road (From a point .3 of a mile south 
of Lexington Road to Barnett Shoals Road)

11. Greencrest Drive (All)

12. All interior streets or roads in the zone not specif­
ically mentioned

13. Pocket Zone.
(a) Royal Court (All)
(b) Branch Street (All)
(c) East Broad Street (1400 thru 1700 blocks)
(d) Dublin Street (From Branch Street thru 100 

block
(e) Anderson Street (All)
(f) Angle Street (All)
(g) Winterville Road (300 thru 500 blocks)
(h) North Bailey Street (300 block only)

[125] Barnett Shoals E lem entary School





—  6 3  —

[129] In Re:
Appeal of School Patrons of Uni­

versity Heights Community 
F r o m  Resolution of Clarke 
County Board of Education 
Adopting ‘ ‘ Pocket Bussing ’ ’
Plan of Desegregation for 1969- 
70 School Year.

STIPULATION FOR AMENDMENT OF APPEAL

The undersigned, counsel for the Movants and counsel 
for the Clarke County Board of Education in the above 
appeal, hereby stipulate as follows:

1

That the Motion for Consideration filed with the Clarke 
County Board of Education on August 5, 1969, as amended, 
August 13, 1969, and the Appeal to the State Board of 
Education filed August 15, 1969, be and the same hereby 
are amended by adding as new parties appellants thereto, 
the following persons, residents of the named communities 
of Clarke County, Georgia, as indicated, to wit:

(a) Camelot Community Child Age
1. Joseph Barresi, Jr. Joseph 6

192 Merlin Drive
2. Jack D. Butler Melissa 6

170 Lavender Road
3. James H. Butler Scotty

188 Merlin Drive
4. Richard D. Campbell Scott 7

220 Kings Circle
[130] 5. Lawrence R. Collins Debra 11

198 Merlin Drive Karen 9

Before the Clarke 
>. County Board of 

Education.



—  64 —

6. James L. Crosby 
121 Merlin Drive

7. Thomas W. Culbertson 
135 Kings Circle

8. George T. Dailey 
135 Lavender Road

9. James E. Davis 
285 Kings Circle

10. Curtis L. Fraser 
240 Kings Circle

11. A. R. Fleming
130 Lavender Road

12. Ray N. Hemphill 
275 Lavender Road

13. John Hixson
270 Lavender Road

14. John A. Manley 
115 Merlin Drive

15. Elton McElheney 
140 Lavender Road

16. J. R. Mocko
145 Lavender Road

17. Samuel L. Round 
199 Merlin Drive

18. J. P. Sorrells 
135 Merlin Drive

19. Melvin P. Terry 
181 Merlin Drive

Stuart 6

Leslie 8

Michael 10
Mark 8
Melinda 8
Duane 6

Kimberly 8
Curtis, Jr. 6
Arland 10
Debbie 8
Eric 7
Chris 9
Wendy 6
Dawn 8

Michael 11
Debra 10
Jeff 6

Carol 6

Sammy 10

Peggy 11
Sandra 6
Robert 10
Chris 8
Mitchell 6
Mitchell 8[131] 20. Raymond T. Wilkerson 

161 Merlin Drive



—  6 5  —

21. J. W. Bryson Jimmy 10
280 Merlin PL

22. Earl W. Swank Mark 6
110 Lavender Road

(b) Oconee Heights Community Child Age
1. James S. Johnson James S., Jr. 10

125 Canady Drive
2. Mrs. Faye Griffeth Charles Wesley 10

155 Canady Drive
3. George L. Chassevent Raymond Claud

190 Jefferson River Road
4. Herbert Craven Dariel Lee 6

225 Jefferson River Road Mitzy K. 8
5. Donal D. Hook Karen Linda 11

215 Jefferson River Road Michael Boyd 9
Kenneth James 7

6. E. A. Tucker Eddie Newton 10
305 Jefferson River Road

7. Mrs. Evelyn Messer John Andrew 8
355 Jefferson River Road

8. Ernest C. Kessler Elizabeth 9
330 Jefferson River Road

9. Magnolia Faust Sandra • •

Susan
James

(c) Talassee Road Community Child Age

1. W. H. Logan Phil 6
Lavender Road Robin 11
Route 1

[132] 2. Carroll Ogletree Rena 9
Tallassee Road Michell 7

Troy 6



6 6

3. A. J. Lester Susan 11
Tallassee Road Gail 8

4. Charles G. Bowden Chuck 11
Tallassee Road Dottie 9

Dianna 7

) Westgate Park Community Child Age
1. Richard Gnann Richard 14

215 Lakeland Drive Catherine 10
Elizabeth 8

2. Ray Gollihugh Deborah 10
160 Gatewood Place Gary 5

3. William Greene Connie 15
165 Oakwood Terrace Debbie 11

4. Heinz Hennig Susan 15
255 Gatewood Circle Nancy 14

David 11
Betsy 6

5. Emory Linder David 11
245 Lakeland Drive Terri 9

Scott 6
6. Tommy Richards Randy 14

190 Gatewood Circle Jeff 10
Bart 7

7. Henry Smith Steve 14
120 Oakwood Terrace Mark 12

Julie 5
8. John Wilmot Mark 11

260 Gatewood Circle Grady 6

2

That the above stated minor children are entitled to at­
tend, and will attend, elementary and public schools oper­
ating under the jurisdiction of the Clarke County Board of 
Education during the 1969-70 school year.



6 7  —

[133] 3
That the above stated parents are citizens and taxpayers 

of the United States, the State of Georgia, and Clarke 
County, Georgia, and reside in the Northwestern area of 
Clarke County the following average distances from the 
Whitehead Road public elementary school, operated by the 
Clarke County Board of Education, to wit:

(a) Camelot Community, 1.6 miles
(h) Oconee Heights Community, 1.4 miles
(c) Tallassee Road Community, 2.7 miles
(d) Westgate Park Community, 2.9 miles

4
That for the 1968-69 school year, the children above 

stated, other than those who are entering public schools 
for the first time, and those who are new to the system, 
attended the Whitehead Road public elementary school, 
operated by the Clarke County Board of Education.

5
That under the school desegregation plan adopted by the 

Clarke County Board of Education on July 30, 1969, and 
which constitutes the subject matter of the pending ap­
peal, all of the aforesaid minor children will be assigned 
to, and required to attend, the North Athens Elementary 
School, operated by the Clarke County Board of Educa­
tion, the average distances from each of said communities 
to said elementary school being as follows:

(a) Camelot Community, 4.3 miles
(b) Oconee Heights Community, 3.2 miles
(c) Tallassee Road Community, 5.6 miles

(d) Westgate Park Community, 5.3 miles



—  6 8  —

[134] 6
That other than Mrs. Magnolia Faust, who is a Negro 

citizen of the United States, all of the persons above stated 
are white citizens of the United States, and all of the four 
communities above named, constitute predominantly white, 
suburban communities, with middle and upper middle class 
socio-economic characteristics.

7
That a map attached hereto, marked Exhibit “ A ” , in­

dicates the location of the Whitehead Road and North 
Athens Public Elementary Schools, and each of the four 
communities hereinabove referred to.

8
That the area immediately adjoining the North Athens 

Elementary School is commercial and industrial in charac­
ter, and the residential area in proximity thereto, consists 
mostly of Negro families with low socio-economic charac­
teristics, substantially different from that of the four com­
munities hereinabove named.

9
That during the school year 1968-69, the pupils from the 

Oconee Heights Community, resided within walking dis­
tance of the Whitehead Road School, and transportation 
was not provided by the system for said pupils. Transpor­
tation was provided for the elementary pupils residing in 
the Camelot community, although some of said pupils are 
within walking distance of the Whitehead Road School, 
and transportation was provided for pupils residing in the 
other two communities named herein.

[135] 10
That under the plan of desegregation adopted by the 

Clarke County Board of Education on July 30, 1969, the



6 9  —

elementary children of persons hereinabove named were 
included within the North Athens Elementary School zone 
for the purpose of achieving in said school substantial de­
segregation, and said elementary children were zoned out 
of the Whitehead Road Elementary School zone for the 
purpose of making room in said School for Negro pupils 
to be bussed in from pockets situated in the Oglethorpe 
and College Avenue Elementary School zones, so as to 
achieve substantial desegregation at the Whitehead Road 
Public School.

11

That the school patrons hereinabove named, shall be 
deemed parties to the pending appeal before the State 
Board of Education, the same as if they had been orig­
inally named in the motion for reconsideration, and the 
appeal to the State Board, and that all evidence and docu­
ments introduced into the record shall be equally applica­
ble to said parties, together with the additional facts 
stated in this stipulation; and that the denial of the Mo­
tion for Reconsideration by the Clarke County Board of 
Education on August 13, 1969, shall also be deemed a de­
nial of said motion as to all of the parties hereinabove 
named, it being the purpose of this stipulation to make 
said persons parties to the pending appeal so as to obviate 
the expense and delay of new hearings before the Clarke 
County Board of Education.

[136] 12

That this stipulation be certified and transmitted to the 
State Board of Education by the Superintendent of Schools 
of Clarke County, Georgia.

This September 2nd, 1969.

(Signatures of Counsel Omitted)



4CH0OV- -Z.OHES

{ —— 1  CAMS'-°T COMMUNITY

t------ OCONEE HEIGHTS COMMUNITY

f — - j  TALLASSEE R.CAO COMMUNITY 

(*-^1 WESTGATE PAP.K COMMUNITY

,n i..en  
Nf.kfto 
luHlTE.



—  71 —

[173] TRANSCRIPT OF EVIDENCE BEFORE 
CLARKE COUNTY BOARD 

OF EDUCATION

In Re:
Motion for Reconsideration of 

Clarke County Board of Edu- . 
cation Adopting Pocket Bussing 
Desegregation for 1969-70 School 
Year

Before the 
Clarke County 

Board of 
Education 

August, 1969

Appearances:

For Movants and/or Plaintiffs: Mr. Freeman Leverett, 
Attorney at Law, Elberton, Georgia.

For Defendants: Mr. Eugene A. Epting, Attorney at 
Law, Athens, Georgia.

[175] Paul L. Wood, et al.,

vs.

Dr. Broadus Browne, et al., Mem­
bers of the Clarke County Board 
of Education, and Charles P. 
McDaniel, Superintendent of 
Schools of Clarke County, Geor-

Motion for Recon­
sideration of 

* Action of Clarke 
County Board 
of Education.

gia.

STIPULATION AND STATEMENT OF FACTS AS 
CONTENDED BY DEFENDANTS

It is hereby stipulated by the parties in the above mat­
ter that the motion filed by Plaintiffs is to be considered 
as an application for hearing before the Clarke County 
Board of Education, and that all parties waive notice and 
agree that the hearing be held on the 13th day of August,



—  7 2  —

1969, at 7:30 p. m. at the Administration Building of 
Clarke County School District and that the following 
statement of historical details submitted by the Board of 
Education of Clarke County be incorporated in the evi­
dence in order to reduce the amount of oral testimony 
necessary to otherwise state the matters therein re­
ferred to.

This 13th day of August, 1969.

E. Freeman Leverett 
Attorney for Plaintiffs

Eugene A. Epting 
Attorney for Defendants

[176] Dr. Broadus Browne: I will now call the Board of 
Education, the Clarke County School District to order 
and ask Mrs. Billingsworth to call the roll. There being 
a quorum present, we will proceed with the business at 
hand which, as you already know, is a public hearing 
requested by a group of citizens through their attorney. 
The first step, Mr. Leverett, is that I would like for you 
to call your witnesses and have all of the witnesses sworn 
at the same time before we proceed. Mr. Epting, would 
you swear the witnesses, please.

d r . McDa n ie l , m r . m o r a n , d r . b o o t h , m r . 
HOMER FLEMING, MR. DAN HOBBS,

DR. BROWNE, MRS. OTIS SIMS,
being first duly sworn, testified as follows:

Opening Statement, by Mr. Leverett

Mr. President, if it please the members of the Board, in 
the interest of time, I think I will reserve my remarks 
until the conclusion. I have some documents that I hope 
perhaps we could get in, at least some of them.



—  7 3  —

Mr. President, we have movant’s exhibits, and they are 
marked Plaintiff’s Exhibits:

1. Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1 which is a certified copy of the 
minutes of this Board meeting of July 16, 1969.

2. Plaintiff’s Exhibit 2, a certified copy of the minutes 
of this Board of July 21, 1969.

3. Plaintiff’s Exhibit 3, which is a certified copy of the 
minutes of this Board meeting of July 30, 1969.

4. Plaintiff’s Exhibit 4 which is a map of Athens and 
Clarke County, Georgia.

5. Plaintiff’s Exhibit 6 which is a document entitled
[177] Plan B, together with a chart of statistics attached 
thereto.

6. Plaintiff’s Exhibit 7, which is a document entitled 
Evaluation of Transportation Costs Under Zoning Plans.

Mr. Epting and I have agreed upon the admission of 
that evidence. At this time we would like to call Mr. 
Homer Fleming as an adverse party for the purpose of 
cross-examination under the rule.

MR. HOMER FLEMING,
having previously been sworn, testified as follows:

Cross-Examination, by Mr. Leverett

Q. Your name is Homer Fleming? A. Right.
Q. Where do you live? A. 625 Gaines School Road, 

Athens, Georgia.
Q. Mr. Fleming, you are a member of the Board of 

Education of Clarke County? A. That is correct.
Q. How long have you served in that capacity? A. 

Three years and about eight months.



—  7 4  —

Q. Your home is located on what road? A. Gaines 
School Road.

Q. And that is about ten or eleven doors down from the 
Gaines Elementary School? A. That is correct.

Q. You were serving on the Board of Education, were 
you not, Mr. Fleming, during 1968 and the first part of 
this year when the present school desegregation plan was 
under consideration by the Board? A. That is correct.

Q. Now, a sub-committee consisting of Mr. Baxton Cook, 
Mrs. [178] Parsons and Mr. Jones was appointed in the 
latter part of 1968, were they not, to make recommenda­
tions to the Board? A. As I recall, that is true.

Q. At that time the Board was under December 1st or 
else a January 1, 1969 deadline, I am not sure which, to 
present a new plan, was it not? A. That is correct.

Q. Now, this sub-committee or the committee submitted 
how many plans to the Board initially? A. As I recall, 
there was only one plan that was actually submitted as 
a recommendation for the committee, I mean, from the 
committee.

Q. They had under consideration about three or four, 
did they not? A. The committee did.

Q. Yes, sir, but none of those plans were adopted by the 
Board, were they? A. No, sir.

Q. Then, the Clarke County Board of Education re­
quested the School Desegregation Education Center at the 
University of Georgia to study this matter and make a 
recommendation, didn’t they? A. I am not aware of that. 
I was told this was done, but I had nothing to do with this.

Q. Now, is it also true that the School Desegregation 
Education Center worked with members of the Board staff 
in trying to devise a plan? A. I really don’t know. I was 
not on that committee and was not present at any of the 
meetings.



7 5  —

Q. You do know by virtue of being a member of the 
Board [179] that the Center did submit three plans, one 
of which was Plan B, did it not? A. Excuse me.

Q. I say that you do know that the School Desegrega­
tion Center submitted three plans to the Board, one of 
which was Plan B? A. Not to my knowledge, no.

Q. You are not familiar with that? A. I am not familiar 
with that fact.

Q. You are familiar with a plan that this Board con­
sidered that was referred to as Plan B, are you not? A. 
Yes, sir.

Q. You are familiar with the fact that that called for 
pairing of the elementary schools, certain elementary 
schools on a long line of grades 1 and 4 in one school 
and grades 5-6? A. Yes, sir.

Q. You were also aware of the fact, were you not 
Mr. Fleming, that this plan had been prepared by at 
least some of the members of the staff of the Clarke 
County Board of Education? A. I was told this is true.

Q. And, consequently, you were aware, were you not, 
of the fact that this plan was prepared by experts in 
the field of education? A. I would assume that to be 
true.

Q. What was the Citizens’ Advisory Committee? A. 
This is a committee that was employed by the Board 
members, I mean appointed by the Board members and 
the P. T. A .’s to act as an advisory to the Board of 
Education.

Q. It contained about forty members, didn’t it? [180] 
A. I believe that is approximately right.

Q. And it consisted of representatives from each 
P. T. A., plus approximately twenty-two members ap­
pointed by the Board? A. I believe that is correct.



—  7 6  —

Q. You are also aware of the fact, are you not, Mr. 
Fleming, that the so called Plan B was endorsed by the 
Citizens’ Advisory Committee? A. Yes.

Q. It was endorsed by the Athens Ministerial Associ­
ation? A. Yes.

Q. And, by the League of Women Voters? A. At a 
later time, I believe.

Q. Approximately when was Plan B made public and 
submitted to the Board of Education for consideration? 
A. I don’t recall the exact date.

Q. It was some time in the early part of 1969, wasn’t 
it? A. The only plan the committee recommended was 
the Neighborhood School Plan, and I was not too familiar 
with Plan B at that particular time other than to know 
that it was a 1-4 and 5-6 bussing arrangements, and this 
is primarily what I was concerned with.

Q. The plan was widely discussed among the citizens 
of Clarke County, wasn’t it? A. Yes, I think so by the 
people who were interested in the plan, I believe this is 
true.

Q. On or about April 28, 1969, isn’t it true that the 
Board’s committee met in a meeting with the Board from 
which the public was excluded, at which time the com­
mittee presented to the Board for the first time the so 
called Neighborhood School Plan that was later adopted! 
[181] A. I don’t recall this. This might be true; how­
ever, I wouldn’t say that it is.

Q. Were you present at the Board meeting when the 
committee first submitted the so called Neighborhood 
School Plan which was subsequently approved by the 
Board? A. Yes, sir.

Q. And, that was in a meeting at which the public 
was not permitted to be present, wasn’t it? A. I am 
not sure. To my knowledge, no. I wouldn’t say that 
it was not, but to my recollection, this is not true.



—  77 —

Q. This plan was not released to the public, or the 
public notified of it prior to the time it was submitted 
to the Board, was it? A. I ’m not sure about that.

Q. It is also true, isn’t it, Mr. Fleming, that the fol­
lowing night, the 29th of April, one day after this plan 
had been submitted to the Board for the first time, the 
Board acted on it and adopted it. A. Yes.

Q. Why wasn’t this plan announced to the public and 
released to the public so that members of the public who 
were affected by it could study it and make known their 
views with respect to it, Mr. Fleming? A. I have no 
idea. It just wasn’t done.

Q. Why did the Board adopt this Plan after having 
already received a plan prepared by experts which had 
been endorsed so widely by groups in Clarke County, 
why did the Board adopt this Neighborhood Plan which 
no one apparently knew anything about except the peo­
ple who prepared it? A. I can only speak for myself. 
I felt like it was the [182] best plan. I voted for it and 
supported it.

Q. What was your reason for feeling that it was the 
best plan? A. It involved an additional cost and addi­
tional school being operated. It involved transportation 
of a lot of smaller children out of their neighborhood— 
to a greater and larger extent some 900-1,000 young 
children.

Q. Isn’t it true that the additional transportation cost 
involved in Plan B was only about $1,400.00? A. Not 
to my way of thinking.

Q. That is not your information? A. That may be the 
information, but it is not my idea.

Q. Wasn’t a study prepared by the staff which de­
termined that this was true? A. This was true to the 
extent that the information that we were given from 
the staff; but, this also included over the cost of bussing



7 8  —

last year which this year we have the new Oglethorpe 
Avenue School which would be considerably less.

Q. Why is that, Mr. Fleming! I am not sure I under­
stand. A. With all of the Forest Heights children being 
bussed last year, and this year they won’t be.

Q. They were being bussed under which plan! A. Un­
der the plan that was in effect last year, last school 
year.

Q. Which was------ A. This is a new school that is
just opening up.

Q. I see, but that doesn’t have anything to do with 
Plan B. That was with reference to another plan that 
was in effect last year! A. It does have something to 
do with the bussing costs.

Q. I am not sure how you are comparing—as I under­
stand it, [183] you are comparing what takes place under 
Plan B with what takes place under the plan that was 
adopted, are you not! A. No, I am considering what 
will take place this coming September.

Q. Now, this plan that was adopted by the Board on 
April 29th of this year was later rejected by H. E. W., 
wasn’t it! A. That is correct.

Q. Didn’t the Board attorney advise the Board on July 
16th that, in his opinion, H. E. W. was acting contrary 
to law in refusing to approve this plan! A. I don’t re­
call the Board attorney using these words. As I under­
stood it, it was his opinion that the plan was legal.

Q. He also advised the Board that he could reschedule 
the hearing before the hearing examiner and get a legal 
determination or at least an administrative determination 
by the hearing examiner as to the legality of that plan, 
didn’t he! A. I don’t know about the legality. We were 
advised that the hearing would be continued.

Q. You recall that on the 16th at that time, the Board 
voted to stand by the so called Neighborhood Plan, and



to ask for the hearing to be rescheduled? A. That is cor­
rect.

Q. Now, why, after having so voted on July 16th, Mr. 
Fleming, did the Board then on July 21st, rescind its 
action and decide not to stand on the Neighborhood Plan? 
A. I am sure that I can’t answer that.

Q. Were you present at the meeting? A. Yes, sir.
Q. How did you vote? Do you recall? A. I voted to 

pursue the plan that was at the hearing. [184] I voted 
to go with the hearing on the plan originally submitted.

Q. Who called this meeting on July 21st? A. I believe 
the President of the Board.

Q. Do you know why he called it? A. Presumably to 
reconsider I understood.

Q. Did any of the Board members indicate to him that 
they had changed their minds, to your knowledge? A. 
Not to my knowledge.

Q. Did you think it unusual that this special meeting 
was called to consider something that had already been 
decided? A. No, I really didn’t under the circumstances 
because of the complexity of the problem that the Board 
has been facing for some eight or ten months, I was not 
surprised. I was not in any way surprised at all.

Q. Now, on July 30th the Board adopted the compromise 
plan which is in question here tonight, is that true? A. 
That is correct.

Q. Now, this plan also was considered by the Board, 
was it not, Mr. Fleming, without first having been sub­
mitted or announced to the public? A. The public and the 
press were present that night.

Q. But, that was the first time that any inkling of it 
had gotten out, other than whatever had taken place by 
the staff? A. This particular plan was not completed 
until, I believe it was Saturday afternoon before Monday 
night.

—  7 9  —



—  8 0  —

Q. And when was the meeting! A. Monday night.
Q. Isn’t it true, Mr. Fleming, that this plan was dis­

cussed at a committee meeting as a whole of an informal 
unannounced Board meeting before it was actually taken 
up at a regular or [185] called meeting and voted on? 
A. No, it was not voted on. The Board met as a committee 
to get us some criteria as to what we could work out as a 
plan that would suit most of the Board members.

Q. The plan was actually submitted to the Board at this 
committee as a whole meeting, wasn’t it! A. No.

Q. The plan had been prepared by the time that meet­
ing was held, hadn’t it! A. The press was here and quite 
a few people were here.

Q. Did you vote to approve the so called compromise 
plan that was adopted on July 30th! A. Yes, I did.

Q. Why was it that this plan was not announced to the 
public and the press before it was brought on for a meet­
ing before the Board? A. I don’t know. I couldn’t answer 
that.

Q. It is true, isn’t it, that you were one of the two 
Board members who worked and devised this plan, along 
with assistance from two members of the staff ? A. I would 
like to correct that statement if I might. The Board gave 
and asked Mr. Ellard and myself to work with the staff. 
The Board members discussed criteria that we were to 
follow, and neither of us recommended this plan. We merely 
worked with it out with the staff to meet the criteria that 
the Board members desired.

Q. Those Board members were you and Mr. Ellard in 
conjunction with Dr. Booth and Mr. Moran of the staff, is 
that right. A. That is correct.

[186] Q. And this meeting where it was first discussed 
by the Board was held on a Monday night, wasn’t it? 
A. I believe that is correct, yes.



—  81 —

Q. It was approved on Wednesday, July 30th1? A. I 
think the reason for that would be the time element in 
getting a plan approved so the administrative staff could 
get down to the business of trying to run a school system.

Q. You had known as a result of a letter from H. E. W. 
rejecting the Neighborhood Plan that H. E. W. would 
approve Plan B, hadn’t you, Mr. Fleming? A. Yes.

Q. And, of course, the Board as a whole knew that 
because this letter, I assume, was discussed at the Board 
meeting, wasn’t it? A. I received a copy of that letter, 
yes, sir.

Q. Well, now, once again, Mr. Fleming, I ask you why 
did the Board adopt this compromise plan which had not 
been submitted to the public, and they had not had an 
opportunity to consider it as against Plan B which had 
been widely considered, and which you knew H. E. W . had 
already given their approval? A. I can only speak for 
myself.

Q. What were your reasons for voting for the com­
promise plan? A. It was closest to the Neighborhood 
School Plan than anything that, had been submitted to 
the Board; it was an economical plan; it was an educa­
tional sound plan.

Q. It was not as close to a neighborhood plan school 
concept as the Neighborhood Plan itself which had been 
approved by the Board and then submitted to H. E. W., 
was it? A. This is correct.

Q. What were the district lines based on in this com­
promise [187] plan, Mr. Fleming? A. The lines were 
based on where the children lived, and where the schools 
were located.

Q. What did you use as a criteria to determine where 
a line would be? A. The number of children that would 
go to certain schools.



—  8 2  —

Q. No, sir, I have reference to the district lines. When 
you decided to make a certain street a district line, or 
some other geographical barrier, how did you set out to 
determine what area would be included within Gaines 
school district or the Barnett Shoals school district, or 
any other school district. What criteria ground rules did 
you determine upon before you actually prepared these 
district lines! A. Generally, I think one of the criteria 
that we were given to work with was the minimum of 
busses in the school. Yet, to have a minimum of 20% 
negro and a maximum of 40% negro in all schools except 
East Athens and West Broad. This was the criteria that 
we had to work with.

Q. Why were these two schools singled out and were 
exceptions to this otherwise rule, uniform rule! A. I 
couldn’t answer that. This was a suggestion as one of 
the criteria we wTere given to work with.

Q. Who were you given this criteria by! A. By the 
Board members.

Q. By the Board members! A. In the discussion that 
took place at our meeting.

Q. What was the reason assigned at the Board meeting 
for making this exception for West Broad and East Ath­
ens! A. I couldn’t tell you what their reasons were.

Q. Did anyone state any reason or anything that you 
interpreted as being a reason for making this exception! 
[188] A. No. The only thing I could assume, and I don’t 
like to do that, would be that probably the negro com­
munity was not desirous of being spread out through the 
school system. They would like to keep some of their own 
identity.

Q. Now, what system was used to determine which of 
these negro citizens -would be included within one of 
these five pockets of people that were being bussed out 
of their geographical or school district to some school



—  8 3  —

outside of that district, how did you determine who would 
be included in one of these pockets? A. I did not deter­
mine this. We either worked it with the staff.

Q. Who determined it then? A. You might say we all 
determined it.

Q. What did you use in agreeing upon a particular 
pocket of people to be included in the group to be bussed 
out? A. Well, the Rock Springs Homes, we pocketed it 
out to Barrow. This, of course, is not a bussing situation. 
They can walk. This is an entire group of people. As 
far as the East Athens group of negroes are concerned, 
I don’t know that any criteria was used. We needed so 
many negro children to take to Gaines and Barnett Shoals.

Q. In other words, what you are telling me, if I under­
stand it, is that you determined how many negro children 
you needed to put in a particular outlying area school, 
you would look on the map in one of the school districts 
within the central city and find an area that had about 
that number of pupils? A. If you look at East Athens 
school, if you don’t move some of the negroes out, it will 
be an all negro school almost. This was not the criteria 
we were given to work with.
[189] Q. Yes, sir, hut in determining which negro pupils 
in East Athens would be pocketed and bussed out, how 
did you pick and choose between the negroes within their 
district, how did you determine whether this student here 
would go as against this student over here? A. We took 
an area with a certain number of negro children in it, 
and we just drew a line right there. Nobody knew where 
anybody lived. We were not trying to put anybody in 
or leave anybody out.

Q. You had a map when you started, didn’t you, Mr. 
Fleming, that showed or indicated how many negro pu­
pils were in each particular street or each particular 
group of streets, or each particular section? A. Yes.



—  8 4  —

Q. So, actually what you did, as I understand it, was 
governed mostly by the gratuitous numbers that you 
found you needed. If you needed fifty negro children, to 
bus out, and you found an area containing fifty negro 
children, you picked that because it had about the num­
ber you needed, is that right! A. Not necessarily.

Q. Well, what criteria did you use! A. From East 
Athens on out there, you have groups of negro children 
that we bus to three different schools.

Q. Yes, sir, but how did you determine—first, let me 
ask you this. There are some negro children in the East 
Athens district that will attend the East Athens Ele­
mentary School, aren’t there? A. Correct.

Q. There are two groups in the East Athens district, 
one [190] group will attend the Gaines School, and an­
other will attend the Barnett Shoals school, is that right? 
A. Correct.

Q. How did you determine, for example, that a particu­
lar group of negro pupils would be bussed out to Gaines 
as against another group that is not being bussed in that 
same district, how did you determine who would be it? 
A. You have to use the numbers to determine it. We 
didn’t determine who was going to be it.

Q. In other words, you simply look at the map, and 
you knew that you needed eighty or ninety pupils in 
Gaines school, you would look at the map and found an 
area in the East Athens zone that had about that number 
of pupils, you would use them simply because they fit. A. 
I don’t know of any other way to do it.

Q. All right, sir. Now, why was the University Heights 
area included in the East Athens school district, Mr. 
Fleming? A. As I recall, this problem was worked around 

by two or three different times. We finally came back to 
it about the third time. If you put them in B arnett 

Shoals, you cut down on the negro ratio. If you put



—  8 5

them in Barrow, you do the same thing. In other words, 
in order to get the 20% minimum in those two schools, 
they would have to go somewhere, or somebody has got 
to go somewhere.

Q. Mr. Fleming, how did you select the University 
Heights area which, I believe you will agree, that the 
University Heights community is located in the extreme 
southern portion of the East Athens Elementary district, 
is it not? A. Yes, according to this line here.
[191] Q. Why was the University Heights community 
selected to be included within the East Athens Elementary 
zone as against say some part of the Gaines school district 
or the Winterville School District zone? A. The Gaines 
area, there are no children being bused to this school 
under this plan except the negro children is my under­
standing.

Q. Well, you could have drawn the lines differently 
and had a group of negro and white children from what 
is now the Gaines district, and just included them in 
the East Athens zone, couldn’t you? A. I didn’t quite 
understand that.

Q. I say wouldn’t it have been possible to have drawn 
the district lines so that the East Athens zone would 
have included what is now part of Gaines, rather than 
have included University Heights. A. I just pointed out 
that none of the Gaines children, the white children will 
be bused in there. They will all walk to the Gaines school.

Q. What about the Winterville district? A. There are 
not enough white children in the busing area there to 
meet the criteria.

Q. There are quite a few white children that have to 
he bused into the Winterville zone, aren’t there? A. 
This is true, but there are also some negroes in the same 
area, and you can take a bus load of the same age school 
children, you wouldn’t get just white children.



—  8 6  —

[192] Q. Mr. Fleming, do you own 177 acres of land out 
on the Lexington Road? A. I don’t know what 177 acres 
you are talking about.

Q. You do own about 177 acres of land on the Lexing­
ton Road, 293.37 acres on the Whit Davis Road, 425.53 
acres on the Lexington and Davis Road, 31 acres on the 
Whit Davis Road, and 43 acres on Springtree Road? A. 
How many on Springtree?

Q. 43? A. The last figure is incorrect. I would like 
to say that I would like to own some more out there.

Q. All of that land that you own, none of it is in the 
East Athens zone, is it? A. This is very true. I would 
like to own some in the East Athens zone too.

Q. All of this land is either in the Gaines and Winter- 
ville area zone, isn’t it? A. All the land that I own?

Q. That I have just mentioned? A. No. None of the 
land is in the Gaines area that you have mentioned.

Q. Which zone is it in? A. It is in the Barnett Shoals 
school zone that is under the compromise plan.

Q. This is an area that is rapidly developing in Clarke 
County, isn’t it? A. I would have to say it is, yes.

Q. All of this land that I have referred to has poten­
tial as sub-division development, doesn’t it? A. No more 
than a lot of the other areas in the North, [193] South, 
East and West of the county and the downtown area as 
far as that is concerned.

Q. But, this area that this land is in is developing quite 
faster than other parts of the county, particularly, for 
example, in the Northeast part of the county, isn’t it? 
A. I would say yes.

Q. And, it would effect the value of this land if it 
would have been included in the East Athens school zone, 
wouldn’t it? A. I am sure it would.



—  8 7  —

Q. In fact, it would have diminished its value, would 
it not! A. Probably.

Q. Leaving it in the Barnett Shoals which would make 
that area a part of the Barnett Shoals school zone would 
tend to cause it to be attractive for development, wouldn’t 
it? A. This has been true. I can’t answer this for the 
future because I don’t know what the school situation 
would be in the future.

Q. Let me be sure that I understand you. A. Let me 
say this. I don’t think anybody can say that you are 
going to escape this problem anywhere in Clarke County 
by saying you are going to buy a home in certain areas 
because the schools are there that you want your child 
to go to. In my opinion, these days are gone.

Q. Yes, sir, but for this year all of your property has 
escaped it, has it not? A. I am not developing any of my 
property.

Q. You bought it, and you are retaining it with the 
idea that that may be something in the future. A. This is 
possible, hut right now I am farming.

[194] Direct Examination, by Mr. Epting

Q. Mr. Fleming, earlier in your testimony, Mr. Leverett 
asked you about why you supported the original Neigh­
borhood Plan that was presented to H. E. W. on May 30th 
or adopted on April 29th, and you said something about 
it involved additional cost of buses. Now, what were 
you talking about when you referred to the additional cost 
of buses? Were you talking about that or Plan B? A. 
Plan B.

Q. All right, then you were asked why the Oglethorpe 
Avenue students were bused last year, and that never 
was explained. Would you explain what the situation 
was about the Oglethorpe Avenue students that accounted 
for a higher cost of busing last year than would be



—  8 8  —

normally prudent? A. This entire group was bused to 
North Athens school.

Q. Explain why. A. Because the condition was to have 
this school ready by January, and this school was—the 
entire group staff and all—constituted at North Athens 
school.

Q. All right, then, Mr. Leverett asked you why the 
University Heights area was included in East Athens, 
will you state whether or not, according to your knowl­
edge, University Heights is within a mile and a half of 
any of the other schools. A. University Heights children 
are not within a mile and a half of any school. As a 
matter of fact, it is a little over two miles to the Barnett 
Shoals school.

Q. Did University Heights children have to be bused 
in any event to anywhere in the school the bus goes? A. 
Yes.

[195] DR. CHARLES P. McDANIEL,
having previously been sworn, testified as follows:

Direct Examination, by Mr. Leverett
Q. Your name is Dr. Charles P. McDaniel? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Where do you live now Dr. McDaniel? A. Right 

now I am living at 250 Cedar Creek Drive, Athens, 
Georgia.

Q. You are the Superintendent of Schools of Clarke 
County, Georgia? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Which is an appointed or employed position? A. 
Yes, sir.

Q. How long have you held that job? A. Since July 1, 
1969.

Q. Prior to that you were superintendent of Thomas- 
ville, Georgia schools? A. Correct.



—  8 9  —

Q. How long. A. Nine years, sir.
Q. Prior to that, would you give us briefly and quickly 

your experience. A. Beginning in 1947 for six years I 
was employed as an instructor at Georgia Military College. 
After that period of time I was for three years the prin­
cipal of the schools in Meadow, Georgia, and following 
that I was principal of Druid Hills High School, Atlanta, 
and then from there on to Thomasville.

Q. Would you also give us a brief resume of your 
education and degrees, Dr. McDaniel! A. I graduated 
from high school and have a bachelor’s degree [196] from 
Mercer University, a Master’s degree from Mercer Uni­
versity, Master’s degree from Columbia University, a Doc­
tor of Education degree from the University of Georgia.

Q. Since coming to Clarke County, you have familiar­
ized yourself, I am sure, with developments in the last 
year or so relating to the problems of getting an accept­
able school desegregation plan! A. I have spent some 
time; however, there are still some areas with which I 
am not entirely familiar.

Q. How many elementary schools did Clarke County 
operate last year! A. I believe thirteen—maybe fourteen.

Q. Can you name them! A. No, sir.
Q. Would there be Alps Road! A. That is one of them, 

yes, sir.
Q. Barnett Shoals! A. Yes, sir.
Q. Barrow! A. Yes, sir.
Q. Chase! A. Yes, sir.
Q. Chase Street! A. I believe it is Chase Street, yes, 

sir.
Q. College Avenue! A. Yes, sir.
Q. Fowler! A. Yes, sir.
Q. Gaines! A. Yes, sir.



—  9 0  —

[197] Q. North Athens! A. Eight. I am not sure whether 
it was called North Athens last year or whether it was 
called Oglethorpe, hut the Oglethorpe children were 
housed at North Athens.

Q. Oconee! A. Oconee, yes, sir.
Q. What about the Oglethorpe school itself! A. There 

was no such school last year on Oglethorpe Avenue or 
Oglethorpe Street.

Q. Is that a new school! A. It is a new school.
Q. West Broad! A. Yes,, sir.
Q. Whitehead! A. Yes, sir.
Q. Winterville! A. Yes, sir.
Q. And East Athens! A. Right, sir.
Q. Have I omitted any! A. Not to my knowledge.
Q. Now, how many high schools! A. There are two 

high schools.
Q. What are their names! A. Athens High School and 

Burney-Harris High School.

Q. Junior Highs! A. There are three Junior High 
Schools.

[198] Q. What are they! A. Lyons Junior High, Clarke 
Junior High and Pattie Hilsman Junior High.

Q. How many negro and white pupils were there in the 
last fiscal year, that is the ’68-69 school year! A. I think 
there were about 12,000, slightly less than that.

Q. What was the racial division! A. Basically about 
one third negro and two thirds white.

Q. Now, isn’t it true, Dr. McDaniel, that for the 1965-66 
and ’66-67, and ’67-68 school years all the schools in 
Clarke County were operated on a freedom of choice 
basis! A. I understand this is true; however, I do not 
really know. All that I have is just hearsay.



—  9 1  —

Q. According to your best information, and having 
served in this capacity for that length of time, this is 
your understanding! A. Yes.

Q. Now, for 1968-69, isn’t it true that there were six 
or seven elementary schools which were operated on a 
geographic or neighborhood district basis, and all others 
were on a freedom of choice ? A. I believe this is correct.

Q. Would those schools that were on a districting basis 
be Barnett Shoals, Alps Road, Fowler Drive, Gaines, 
North Athens, Winterville and Whitehead Road! A. I 
believe so, but again there are a lot of details here that 
I am not too sure about, but I think these were the ones.

Q. You are also familiar with the fact that in the latter
[199] part of 1968 on up through 1969, the Board had 
under consideration the matter of a new desegregation 
plan and for the upcoming school year! A. Yes, sir.

Q. You, I assume, are also familiar with the fact that 
some time in 1969 the Board requested the assistance of 
the School Desegregation and Education Center at the 
University of Georgia!

Mr. Epting: Mr. President, before we get into all of this 
while technical rules of evidence don’t apply here, I don’t 
think it is fair to ask Dr. McDaniel to testify as to what 
was done before he came here. All it could be would be 
hearsay. Ask somebody who was here and that knows. 
He would have to take it from hearsay, and from a very 
short opportunity to know what the facts are. I would 
like to object to that line of questioning from him. He 
could get it from somebody who knows.

Mr. Leverett: Mr. President, I have so much confidence 
in Dr. McDaniel that I am sure he knows having read 
the minutes.

Dr. Browne: I think Mr. Epting’s remarks are very 
appropriate, Mr. Leverett.



—  9 2  —

Mr. Leverett: Is the president excluding this testimony?

Dr. Browne: I would prefer that you proceed along 
other lines.

Mr. Leverett: Dr. McDaniel, you are familiar, I am 
sure, that there were three plans that were submitted 
by the School Desegregation Center, one plan called Plan 
B? A. Actually, I am not sure just what the Desegre­
gation Center did submit. I know that there was a Plan 
B that was submitted to the committee, and I am fairly 
familiar with the plan.

Q. You have seen Movant’s or Plaintiff’s Exhibit 6, 
I will [200] ask you if you have seen that document in 
the files? A. Yes, sir, I believe I have.

Q. As a matter of fact, you know that was prepared 
by certain members of the staff? A. I know that some 
members of the staff worked on Plan B.

Q. And that was a pairing plan that involved grades 
1-4 these students attending one school, and then that 
school would be paired with another school on grades 5-6 
in the other school? A. I don’t particularly like the 
word pairing, but I do think you have got the basic 
idea.

Q. You are familiar, I am sure, with the so called 
Neighborhood plan? A. Yes, sir.

Q. This is the plan the Board adopted on April 29th? 
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Are you also familiar with the fact that under this 
Neighborhood Plan, the University Heights community 
was placed in the Barnett Shoals school zone, was it not? 
A. I believe this is true; however, I have not checked 
it.

Q. Would you mark that Plaintiff’s Exhibit 5. I hand 
you Plaintiff’s Exhibit 9 and ask you if you can identify 
that as being a correct copy of a map of a Neighborhood



—  9 3

School Plan prepared by the staff office of the Clarke 
County Board of Education? A. I believe this is true, 
yes.

Q. All right, sir. Calling your attention at this area 
that I am putting a circle around, assuming that would 
be the [201] University Heights community, Dr. McDaniel, 
would you state for the record which of the school zones 
that would be in? A. This would be in the Barnett 
Shoals zone.

Q. All right, sir. And, you are aware, are you not, 
that this plan was rejected by H. E. W. on or about 
June 30th? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Is that the day you came to Athens, Clarke County? 
A. No, sir. I came on June 18, and I received notification 
from H. E. W. on July 2 that it had been rejected.

Q. This rejection was only by the staff of 0. C. R., that 
is the Office of Civil Rights. This was not a determination 
by a hearing examiner in connection with this hearing 
that had been scheduled, was it, doctor? A. I believe it 
was signed by a Mr. Panetta who is the Chief of the 
civil rights division, H. E. W.

Q. This plan was never considered by a hearing ex­
aminer? A. I don’t believe so.

Q. I think these minutes are already in evidence, but 
we will put them in context. I ask you isn’t it true that 
on July 16th the so called Plan B was considered, but re­
jected and at that time the Board voted to stand on the 
Neighborhood Plan? A. I presume that is correct. I do 
not have the dates in front of me, but you do. I have pro­
vided you with copies.

Q. I hand you Plaintiff’s Exhibits 1, 2 and 3 which are 
the minutes of July 16, 21 and 30. If you will look at the 
minutes there of the 16th, page 7, it is true, is it not, that 
Plan B was considered and rejected on that date? A.
Right.



—  9 4  —

[202] Q. And that at a special meeting on July 21st, the 
Board rescinded its previous action and decided not to 
stand on the Neighborhood Plan, but to come up with 
something else? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Then, at the meeting of July 30th, the Board adopted 
this modified Neighborhood Plan, referred to as a com­
promise plan? A. This is correct.

Q. Who prepared this plan? A. The plan was prepared 
by two members of the staff and two members of the Board 
of Education.

Q. And, this plan was taken by you and Mr. Epting and 
other representatives of the Board to Washington on July 
31st and submitted to H. E. W. at which time it was ap­
proved? A. I don’t believe it was on July 31st, but I am 
be incorrect. The plan was adopted by the Board on July 
30th, and I believe it was on up in August sometime— 
August 7th.

Q. August 7th? A. Yes.
Q. The Board does intend to use this plan as the 1969-70 

school year? A. They have adopted it, and I am in the 
process of trying to get it implemented.

Q. You are personally familiar with this plan, Dr. Mc­
Daniel? A. Yes, sir.

Q. In effect, I ask you isn’t it true that this is a geo­
graphic zoning plan with five pockets of students, of 
negro students being bussed out of the zones of their resi­
dence to outside or outlying schools in order to achieve 
racial balance? [203] A. I don’t think this would be true. 
First of all, not all of them are being bussed. Some of 
them walk out, and it is basically a geographic zoning 
plan, but some individuals within some zones are attend­
ing school in other designated zones.

Q. All right, sir, there are five so called pockets of 
students who will attend school outside the school district 
of their residence? A. I believe this is correct.



9 5  —

Q. And that involves these five which are located in 
four of the school districts, elementary school districts! 
A. I think this is correct.

Q. There are two in East Athens, one in College, one in
Chase, I am sorry, one in West Broad, and one in------ A.
One to Whitehead, one to Barrow, one to—maybe two 
pockets go to Whitehead, one to Barrow, one to Gaines, 
and one to Barnett Shoals.

Q. There are two pockets in East Athens, right? A. I 
believe this is true. One goes to Gaines, and one must go 
to Whitehead, no, Barnett Shoals.

Q. All right, sir, and there is one in College? A. Yes, 
and it goes to Whitehead Road.

Q. There is one in West Broad? A. Yes, there is one in 
West Broad, and it goes to Barrow. They walk to Barrow.

Q. One in Oglethorpe? A. Yes, and they go to White- 
head.

Q. All of the students in these pockets that are being 
bussed out or else required to attend school outside the 
zones of their residence are negro students, aren’t they? 
A. I don’t believe this is true.
[204] Q. There are some white students in some of these 
pockets? A. I am just not sure. Maybe you had better ask 
somebody who worked on the plan.

Q. Would Mr. Moran know? A. Mr. Moran would know.
Q. How many negro students are being bussed out of the 

East Athens zone to Barnett Shoals? A. I do not know 
sir.

Q. Could you look at that map and tell me? A. It would 
be right difficult for me. I think there will be some other 
witnesses who will know more about it than I will.

Q. But it is true, is it not, that you know as a general 
proposition that there are some negro students in several 
of these pockets that are being bussed out of the zone of



—  9 6  —

their residence to schools in outlying areas? A. Yes, this 
is true.

Q. Then, some white students in some of these outlying 
zones are being or have been included in a zone that they 
will have to attend school in one of the inner city schools 
to make room for those who will go to the schools they 
had been attending? A. I missed the last part of your 
question.

Q. I say it is true that some white students are being 
required to attend different schools than they previously 
attended so as to make room in the school that they pre­
viously attended for some of the pocket students that are 
being either bussed out or required to attend outside 
their zone? A. It would depend upon the point of view, 
I would think. I think they have the opportunity to attend 
another school.

Q. They aren’t given a choice, are they? [205] A. No, 
they are not.

Q. They are required? A. Yes.
Q. What would be the ratio of students between white 

and negro at East Athens Elementary School? A. Ac­
cording to the information which we provided you it is to 
be 44/56.

Q. Actually, isn’t it 47/53? Aren’t those figures incor­
rect that you have? A. Not to my knowledge.

Q. You haven’t checked it have you, Dr. McDaniel? A. 
No, sir, and actually we will not know until after we have 
enrolled them the first day of school. I doubt if there will 
be anybody else that will know.

Q. At the time that this plan was submitted to H. E. W. 
on August 7th, had the zone lines and all of the pockets 
been accurately determined? A. Yes, sir.

Q. You knew approximately how many people were 
going to be in each pocket and approximately how many



—  9 7

people you anticipated would be in each school ? A. We 
knew approximately. You never know exactly.

Q. It would be correct to say that students are being 
bussed out of these pockets—students in the pockets are 
being bussed out of the zones of their residence in order 
to achieve racial balance? A. They are being bussed out, 
yes, sir.

Q. For the purpose of achieving racial balance? A. I am 
not sure we should say racial balance. Maybe you want to 
define what we mean by racial balance. You know, the 
Board set up a criteria saying 20%, a minimum of 20% 
negroes. [206] I think this was the reason. If you want to 
call that racial balance, but it is not when you have some 
schools with 40/60 and some with 20/80.

Q. Well, putting it in your terms, it was for the purpose 
of meeting the criteria that was set by the Board of not 
less than 20% or more than 40% negro in any elementary 
school, except these two? A. This is correct.

Q. Why were these two schools selected to be an ex­
ception to this otherwise uniform rule? A. I do not know. 
I did not participate in that decision.

Q. Do you know of any reason yourself that would 
justify it? A. No, I do not.

Q. And, all of this is being done under the compulsion 
of H. E. W., is it not, Dr. McDaniel? A. We have to 
operate within the law, yes, sir.

Q. This is being done in order to satisfy the require­
ments? A. Of the law.

Q. Yes, of H. E. W.? A. Correct.
Q. You are aware, are you not, that the University 

Heights pupils live outside the city of Athens? A. I be­
lieve this is true.

Q. And they previously attended, according to your 
information, Barnett Shoals school last year? A. I think 
this is correct.



—  9 8  —

Q. And you, of course, agree that they are being bused 
to Bast Athens school under the compromise plan! A. 
Yes, sir. They were bused last year to the school they 
[207] attended, and I believe bused the year before.

Q. But, the reason they are being bused to East Athens 
in 1969-70 school year is for the purpose of achieving the 
racial quotas that are called for by the compromise plan! 
A. I am not sure that we need to say it just that way.

Q. How would you say it! A. I would just say that 
they are within the East Athens zone. You look at the 
East Athens zone and you will recognize that they are 
in the East Athens zone.

Q. Yes, sir, but I ’m asking you why they were put in 
the East Athens zone! A. I didn’t put them there.

Q. Did you hear any conversation among the Board 
members as to why they were put there! A. I surely did 
not sir.

Q. You have no knowledge yourself why they were 
put there! A. I do not, sir. I did not participate in 
the making of the map.

Q. Dr. McDaniel, have you ridden around in the im­
mediate areas surrounding the East Athens Elementary 
school since you have been in Clarke County! A. I have, 
sir.

Q. Did you observe the neighborhood, the type of 
neighborhood that it is, the complexion of it and every­
thing! A. Yes, sir.

Q. You have also ridden around, I assume, on Barnett 
Shoals out in that area! A. I have, sir.

Q. The neighborhoods are substantially different, are 
they not! A. Yes.
[208] Q. Now, isn’t it true that negro students living in 
the East Athens school zone are much nearer to the East 
Athens Elementary school than they are to any other



—  9 9

school are being bused out to the Barnett Shoals Ele­
mentary school? A. This is true, I believe.

Q. And, this is solely for the purpose of creating or 
satisfying these quotas or these objectives that the Board 
had under consideration of not less than 20 or more than 
40? A. I presume that this is true.

Q. And this also makes room in the East Athens Ele­
mentary school for the University Heights students to be 
bused in, does it not? A. Well, it makes space in the 
East Athens school. The University Heights students are 
not the only students that are there. We also have a 
number of other students who do not go to Barnett Shoals 
last year that will be attending East Athens next year.

Q. Do you have any other white pupils attending East 
Athens who were also being bused in ? A. No, but we have 
several of them walking in.

Q. From where? A. We have the entire school com­
munity of Oconee.

Q. In order to not be entitled to transportation, they 
have to be within a one and a half mile walking distance 
of the school, so you have none that are more than a mile 
and a half. There are no white students who will attend 
East Athens school who live more than a mile and a half 
from that school other than the University Heights 
pupils, is that true? A. I believe this is true. On the 
other hand, you recognize that there are a number of 
other white students who are being [209] bused in to 
schools throughout the county—basically, the same sort 
of situation.

Q. Would you tell me which school that is that is in a 
comparable situation? A. Well, the North Athens school.

Q. Where are whites being bused in to the North Athens 
school? A. I believe some of those who live in Camelot, 
and possible some of those who live in Westgate, and 
those that live up and down the Jefferson Road.



100 —

Q. Where is Camelot? A. Camelot is on the Jefferson 
Eoad, or just off the Jefferson Road on the left side go­
ing North. The map that yon have there probably is 
not complete.

Q. I hand you Plaintiff’s Exhibit 4 and ask you to 
mark the Camelot area. A. Generally, I believe it is this
area right here.

Q. This is the Jefferson Highway just to the Northeast 
of the area that you marked as Camelot? A. Yes.

Q. Where are those students being assigned to school? 
A. They are being enrolled at the North Athens school.

Q. And, where is the North Athens school located, 
would you put a circle around it ? A. Generally right there.

Q. How far are those students being brought from the 
Camelot area being bused to the North Athens school? 
A. I haven’t measured it, but from the calls I get, I think 
it must be many miles.

Q. You can look at this scale right here and determine, 
can you not? [210] A. It looks to be three or four miles, 
I don’t know. I had one lady that said it was seven 
miles.

Q. What other area is it that is being assigned to a 
different school than they attended last year and will 
be bused in? A. I am not familiar with the other areas. 
I think possibly there are some other areas.

Q. This is the only one you are familiar with—the 
Camelot area? A. Yes, sir.

Q. North Athens is not one of the two schools con­
stituting an exception to the 20/40 ratio, is it? A. North 
Athens, according to this chart, will have 40% negroes 
and 60% white.

Q. So, it is not an exception to the 20/40 rule? A. Cor­
rect.

Q. So, in that respect, it is not comparable to East 
Athens, is it? A. Once again, Mr. Leverett, as I pointed



— 101

out previously these are the best figures we have now. 
My experience has been for the past twenty years that 
there is actually no way of knowing what students are 
going to attend school on the first day of school.

Q. No white pupils are being bused to the West Broad 
School, are they? A. I don’t believe anyone is being 
bused to the West Broad School.

Q. Therefore, the East Athens school is the only school 
that varies from the 20/40 ratio, with respect to which 
white people are being bused in from an area outside the 
inside school that they did not attend previously? A. I 
presume this is true.

Q. Under this compromise plan, isn’t it true that even 
[211] some streets have been split so that students on one 
side would attend one school, and students on the other 
side another school? A. I don’t believe this is true; how­
ever, I am sure I may be incorrect. This is one of the 
things that was discussed earlier, and the intention was 
that no street be split down the middle. You would in­
clude the entire residents on one street. We might have 
to cut some street off somewhere.

Q. Do you know who suggested the idea of making an 
exception to West Broad and East Athens School? A. No, 
sir, I don’t.

Q. Dr. McDaniel, I ask you whether or not you think 
that it is, from the standpoint of an educator, you think 
that is fair to make some students bear unequal burdens 
with respect to school attendance? A. This would take a 
pretty good explanation from you and from me. I am not 
sure just what you mean by unequal burdens. I think 
that all of us have unequal burdens. I do not see any 
great inequalities in this plan. If there are any inequali­
ties, they would certainly exist for more than the East 
Athens school.

Q. Isn’t it true, Dr. McDaniel, that white children at­
tending the East Athens and West Broad schools are being



102 —

treated differently than the other white children in the 
system! A. Well, if you mean that there are more of 
them, that there are more negroes in these schools, I pre­
sume this would be a correct statement.

Q. Isn’t it true that the negro students in these five 
[212] pockets are being treated differently than the other 
negro students in the system! A. Yes, I think this would 
be a correct statement.

Q. From an educational standpoint you would certainly 
want to strive, would you not, to treat everybody alike 
insofar as possible! A. Insofar as possible this is a reason­
able expectation; however, I would say this. We have 
been trying to sell the doctrine down through the years 
that we don’t treat people alike, that we treat them as 
individuals, and try to handle each individual situation. 
Frankly, this is what we are going to have to do at East 
Athens, West Broad and all the other places.

Q. Dr. McDaniel, are you familiar with the reasons 
underlying the so called Neighborhood School concept! 
A. Again, I am not sure what you mean by the reasons 
underlying the so called Neighborhood School concept. 
The basic neighborhood school concept was everybody 
walk who can. You have a general neighborhood and the 
people are in that school.

Q. Do you agree that is generally a sound educational 
doctrine! A. Generally, it is a sound educational doctrine; 
however, there are some fallacies in it.

Q. You think that it is sound educationally to divide 
up a school made just up of one largest segment of one 
people, and then another segment of a completely different 
socio-economic status! A. Your question was do I think 
this is educationally [213] sound!

Q. Yes! A. I think there is some educational soundness 
here. It depends upon what your ultimate objective is. I 
would subscribe to this as being educationally sound.



1 0 3  —

Q. That is contrary to the neighborhood school concept, 
isn’t it? A. Not necessarily because in many neighbor­
hoods you have all kinds of people in socio-economic 
status.

Q. It comes rather difficult when the division is pretty 
much equal, doesn’t it? A. Well, I am not sure whether 
this may not simplify the matter.

Q. Doesn’t it necessitate some sort of tracking? A. It 
doesn’t necessitate that, but I happen to be a proponent 
of tracking for all schools.

Q. Do you plan to track the students at East Athens 
and West Broad schools? A. I presume that there will be 
some tracking. The ultimate determination has not been 
made, but we will certainly try to fit the program toward 
the students.

Q. Isn’t it true, Dr. McDaniel, that is the only feasible 
way you can operate a school when you have diverse ele­
ments such a heterogeneous group? A. I am not sure that 
this is the only way, but it would be one way.

Q. I believe you said that you were familiar with Plan 
B, are you not? A. Fairly familiar with Plan B; however, 
this was made primarily before I came on the scene. You 
recognize [214] that I am not familiar with a lot of things.

Q. You are doing very well. Isn’t it true that Plan B 
would achieve a more nearly uniform distribution of the 
negro students in the system than the compromise plan? 
A. I think this is evident on the face.

Q. As an educator, from the standpoint of trying to 
avoid so called white withdrawal, you also agree, do you 
not, that Plan B would be preferable to the compromise 
plan? A. I am not sure that it would be at this time under 
these circumstances.

Q. You do recall saying at the Board meetings on more 
than one occasion that Plan B could be implemented,



1 0 4  —

didn’t you! A. Yes, I said that Plan B could be imple­
mented. I think this was about a month ago.

Q. A month ago the Board could have adopted Plan B 
and you could have implemented it? A. It would have 
been difficult, but I think any plan they adopted we would 
be caught trying to implement.

Q. Of course, any great change in your school attendance 
matters will some cause some difficulties, will they not? 
A. Surely.

Q. Doctor, don’t you agree that Plan B from an educa­
tional standpoint is sounder than the compromise plan? 
A. This I would not be able to determine at this particular 
point.

Q. You are familiar with the fact, are you not, that 
one reason the neighborhood schools plans are not favored 
by H. E. W. is that they tend to promote resegregation? 
A. I am not sure why they don’t favor it.

Q. You are familiar with the phenomenon referred to as 
[215] white withdrawal that has been experienced in Chi­
cago and Washington, D. C.? A. Yes.

Q. And all of those areas generally follow the neighbor­
hood school plan conception? A. I presume that they do. 
Those that I know about follow it.

Q. It is approximately four and a half miles from Uni­
versity Heights community to the East Athens school, 
isn’t it? A. I have not measured it. I would guess that 
this would be an approximate figure.

Q. And, of course, you agree, do you not, that the Gaines 
and the Barrow and the Barnett Shoals Elementary schools 
are considerably closer to the University Heights com­
munity than is East Athens? A. I would presume this to 
be true. On the other hand, I am not sure whether it is 
two minutes closer or one minute closer or five minutes 
closer, or just how much closer, or either whether or not 
it is closer. I don’t know.



—  1 0 5  —

Q. With respect to Mrs. Otis Sims, Mrs. Eddie Cross 
and Emma Young under the compromise plan, assuming 
that they live in the Rock Springs homes, their children 
will attend which school? A. To tell you the truth I do 
not know. I am informed that they would go to the Bar- 
row school, but these names were handed to me less than 
an hour ago.

Q. You don’t personally know! You haven’t checked 
it! A. No, sir. I have not.

Q. Dr. McDaniel, have their been California and other 
achievement and I. Q. or mental maturity tests admin­
istered [216] to the pupils of Clarke County? A. Not since 
I have been here.

Q. You don’t know whether any were administered be­
fore you came here? A. I am sure that some testing pro­
gram was in effect, but I am not familiar with the results.

Q. You have not looked at them yourself? A. No, sir.
Q. Who could give me that information? Could Dr. 

Booth? A. I am sure that the information would be avail­
able in the office to any citizen of this county who would 
like to see them.

Q. I am interested in seeing it tonight. Could Dr. 
Booth give me this information? A. I am not sure, but I 
believe she could get it for you. She could get it better 
than I could. I am not sure that she could get it for you 
on individuals, or just how it is broken down. I would 
presume that there is a sound education testing program 
going on here.

Q. How would you track the students at East Athens, 
would it be on the basis of mental maturity or achieve­
ment tests? A. This will be a decision we will have to 
arrive at later on.

Q. Who wall make the decision? Will you make it, the 
Board, the principal or the teacher? A. I think this will



— 106 —

be a group decision, and I am not sure that we will want 
to say track because they may not be tracked. I presume 
we will be grouping as there was when I went to first 
grade some forty five years ago.
[217] Q. What will be the racial composition of the 
faculty at East Athens and West Broad 1 A. Actually, some 
assignments are being made now, and I believe at East 
Athens of the twenty five or so teachers, it is my informa­
tion that fifteen of them will be white and five of them 
will be negro. On the other hand, this may vary, depend­
ing upon the assignments that are made and the indi­
viduals being willing to accept them, and our being able 
to fill them with people who are qualified.

Q. That is considerably different from what you told 
me the other day, isn’t it? A. It may have been. This 
was given to me yesterday.

Q. It was more nearly fifty-fifty when you gave the 
figures to me several days ago. A. Possibly so if I gave 
them to you.

Q. What about West Broad Elementary, what will be 
the division there? A. I do not know, but I believe there 
will be about Ms negro and about % white.

Q. Which projected in the terms of numbers would be 
what? A. I would guess seven negroes and fourteen white, 
but I would not want to be held to that figure because I 
am not sure.

Q. What about Barnett Shoals? A. Excuse me just a 
minute. I don’t even know how big Barnett Shoals is, 
but it looks like it might show about 533 enrollment, and 
it looks like it might be a twenty two, twenty three teacher 
elementary school. I would presume in this school they 
would also have about five, six or seven negro teachers 
and fourteen or so white people.

Mr. Epting: Mr. Leverett, I think this questioning is
[218] a little unusual. This is factual information that



— 107 —

can be obtained. I think you are asking a little too much 
of Dr. McDaniel to try to keep in his head all of these 
numbers right now while he is in the process of inter­
viewing teachers and making adjustments. So, I don’t see 
that this course of questioning will arrive at anything 
definite.

Mr. Leverett: Dr. Browne, in all respect, I would dis­
agree. I don’t know who to get it from. If you can tell 
me somebody that has that information, I would be glad 
to put them up, but I think that I am entitled to inquire 
into it as a part of the case. If you will tell me who has 
this information, I will put them up as a witness.

Dr. Browne: I think it would be rather difficult to get 
that tonight. It can be obtained, and this would go on 
and on without anything very definite coming of it.

Mr. Leverett: Let me ask you this, Dr. McDaniel, will 
there be any system in the school where the faculty mem­
bers or the faculty composition will be roughly fifty/fifty? 
A. I do not know of a school in the system where the 
faculty composition will be roughly 50/50.

Mr. Epting: I think we can stipulate. Nobody knows 
now. You haven’t had but a week to make up your list 
of teachers. They don’t know who is going to be where 
yet. I think we can stipulate that we will add to this 
record as an exhibit when the matter is determined as to 
what teachers will go where. We will add to this stipula­
tion just how many teachers are going to each of the 
schools and what the race of each of them are.

Mr. Leverett: I will be delighted to do that.
It is true, is it not, Dr. McDaniel that you or someone

[219] represented to H. E. W. when this plan was sub­
mitted in August the fact that the composition of each 
school would reflect generally the student’s complexion? 
A. No, this is not true.



1 0 8  —

Q. What does this statement mean “ The professional 
staff has been assigned on a proportionate non-discrimina- 
tory basis in terms of providing the best educational pro­
gram for all the people of the school system.”  What does 
proportionate non-discriminatory basis mean! A. There is 
not any discriminatory activity as far as race is concerned, 
and the fact that it would be distributed so that all schools 
have some negroes and all schools have some white teach­
ers. Basically, I think I know what you are talking about. 
Basically, we did agree that within certain stipulated or 
within certain boundaries or guidelines, we would try to 
have the same ratio or approximately the same ratio of 
teachers in each school as we had total number of teach­
ers.

Q. Not related to the students! A. No, it was not re­
lated to the students at all.

ROBERT HAMPTON MORAN,
having been sworn previously, testified as follows:

Direct Examination, by Mr. Leverett

Q. Mr. Moran, give us your name, please! A. Robert 
Hampton Moran.

Q. Where do you live! A. 134 Clifton Drive, Athens, 
Georgia.

Q. What is your official position with the Clarke County 
Board of Education! A. I am the Business Manager.
[220] Q. What degrees do you hold! A. I hold a B. B. A. 
with a major in accounting.

Q. How long have you been with the Board of Educa­
tion! A. Approximately twelve years.

Q. Prior to that time did you have any position with 
any school board or other educational institutions! A. 
No, sir.



—  1 0 9  —

Q. While serving in your capacity or some official ca­
pacity with the Board during 1968-69 when this matter 
of a new school desegregation plan was before the board, 
you were present then? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Now, in 1968 and 1969 school year, could you give 
me the elementary schools in the system which were 
operated on a geographic zone or neighborhood basis. A. 
Sir?

Q. Would you name those schools in the system, the 
elementary schools, which during the last school year 
were operated on the zone basis. A. As I can recall they 
were Fowler Drive, Winterville, Gaines, Barnett Shoals, 
Alps, Whitehead, and the Oglethorpe were assigned to 
North Athens.

Q. All other elementary schools during that year were 
on a freedom of choice basis? A. Right.

Q. Now in late 1968 and the first part of 1969, the 
Board started considering new plans because of the notices 
from H. E. W.? A. This is true.

Q. In early 1969, the Board requested assistance from 
the [221] S. D. E. C., the School Desegregation Center 
at the University of Georgia? A. Yes, sir.

Q. The S. D. E. C. members worked with staff members 
of the Board on several proposals, is that right? A. Yes, 
sir.

Q. Were you one of the staff members that assisted? 
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Who else assisted? A. Dr. Booth, Mr. Anderson, 
Dr. Rambo, Mrs. Whatley and Don Headell who is now 
the principal at a school.

Q. One of the plans that was submitted by the S. D. 
E. C. and the staff was the so called Plan B? A. Yes, sir.

Q. I hand you Movant’s Exhibit 6 and ask you if that is 
a document that was prepared by the staff or S. D. E. C.



— 1 1 0  —

or tie two together in connection with this plan! A. Yes, 
sir, it is.

Q. And, that accurately sets forth how that plan would
operate! A. Yes, sir.

Q. And, this chart attached to it is a statistical break­
down of how the people would he assigned and the per­
centages, etc.? A. That is correct.

Q. I hand you Movant’s Exhibit 7 and ask you if you 
can identify that as a transportation cost evaluation pre­
pared in connection with these plans? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Who was that prepared by? A. Myself.
[222] Q. And that is accurate ? A. As near as I could make 
it, yes, sir.

Q. It says here that it would cost additionally $1,460.00 
for Plan B? A. Based on the preceding year’s cost.

Q. That figure was correct as far as you could deter­
mine? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Now pocket transportation plan, it says here that 
would cost $11,070.00 less than what it cost last year, is 
that correct? A. As far as I know that is correct.

Q. Did you do that or have you reviewed that since this 
was prepared, and is that figure still accurate as far as 
you know? A. As far as I know, it still is accurate.

Q. Yet, the neighborhood plan according to this would 
cost $18,750.00 less than last year, is that right? A. That 
is correct.

Q. Is that figure still accurate as far as you know? A. 
Yes.

Q. This neighborhood plan that is referred on Movant’s 
Exhibit 7 is the same neighborhood plan that was adopted, 
submitted to H. E. W. and was then rejected? A. That 
is correct.



—  I l l

Q. During late 1968 and early 1969, the Board also had 
a desegregation committee consisting of Mr. Cook, Mrs. 
Parsons and Mr. Jones? A. Yes, sir.

Q. On April 29th of this year the Board, I mean the 
committee submitted to the Board for the first time a new 
[223] plan which was the neighborhood plan, is that 
right? A. Sir, I don’t know the date, but I do know 
that they did present a plan.

Q. It was submitted to the Board and adopted on the 
same night that it was submitted, was it not ? A. Sir, I am 
sorry, I don’t recall.

Q. It is true, is it not, that plan was not announced to 
the public in advance, but was submitted to the Board 
and adopted almost immediately? A. I believe it was.

Q. This plan was adopted by a vote of 5-4. A. I don’t 
recall.

Q. In fact, none of the three plans submitted by the 
S. D. E. C. in which you have assisted were ever actually 
considered by the Board, were they? A. They were con­
sidered by the committee, and I do believe that the in­
formation was presented to the Board.

Q. But, they were actually—none of them were ever 
voted on by the Board prior to the time the neighborhood 
plan was rejected by H. E. W.? A. I don’t believe they 
were.

Q. Under this neighborhood plan, and I hand you Mov­
ant’s Exhibit 9, I ask you if this area that has been 
circled in ink is the University Heights community, is 
it not? A. Yes, sir.

Q. And under the neighborhood plan, University 
Heights was in the Barnett Shoals school zone? A. Yes.

Q. And that is where those pupils attended school last 
year? [224] A. Yes, sir.

Q. What was the basis upon which this neighborhood 
plan was drawn, Mr. Moran. What criteria were used in



— 1 1 2  —

drawing it! A. Sir, I did not participate in the draw­
ing of this plan. It was not drawn in relationship to 
what the University staff recommended.

Q. Was that plan disapproved by the S. D. E. C.? A. 
It was merely presented. This came after the S. I). E. C.

Q. Who actually prepared that plan! A. Primarily 
it was a committee of the Board was involved.

Q. You didn’t assist or advise them in connection with 
drawing that plan! A. No, sir.

Q. Did you know that they were preparing it! A. I 
knew they were working on a plan, yes, sir.

Q. Who assisted them in preparing it ! A. A commit­
tee of the Board Mr. Headwell and Mr. Wood.

Q. Mr. who! A. Mr. Headwell.
Q. Who is he! A. He is now the principal of Pattie 

Hilsman.
Q. Who is the other gentlemen! A. Mr. Wood.
Q. That is a neighborhood school plan based on the 

neighborhood school concept as far as you know! A. 
Yes, sir.

[225] Q. And whoever prepared it considered that the 
University Heights community was in the Barnett Shoals 
school neighborhood! A. Apparently so, yes, sir.

Q. You did have an occasion, did you not, Mr. Moran, 
to participate in the formulation and preparation of the 
compromise plan which was adopted! A. Yes.

Q. Did Dr. Booth also assist in that! A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did anybody else! A. Two board members.

Q. Messrs. Ellard and Fleming! A. Right, sir.

Q. When I refer to you in connection with a series of 
questions concerning any plan, you understand that I 
have reference to the four of you! A. Yes, sir.



—  1 1 3

Q. As I understand from the conversation that you and 
I had last Friday, you told me at that time that in de­
vising these school zone lines that you drew completely 
new lines and did not use the existing school district lines 
of any plan! A. That is true.

Q. And then after drawing these lines, you selected 
five pockets of negro students in four elementary school 
attendance zones to be bussed out of their zone or to be 
assigned out of their zone to other schools in other zones! 
A. This wouldn’t be entirely accurate. The pockets were 
drawn as we went. There was a criteria drawn up by the 
Board and given to us. We knew roughly how many of 
each race [226] would be in each school. As we went 
through we endeavored to get the ratio as the criteria 
set forth.

Q. This ratio you have reference to is not less than 
20% or more than 40% negro at any elementary school 
except West Broad and East Athens! A. This is correct.

Q. How did you determine who would be included in 
a given pocket of negro students either to be assigned 
or bussed out to schools outside their district! A. It 
depended on the number of students. We tried to en­
compass enough students to fill the need.

Q. How would you determine to draw that line in this 
particular area of the district rather than over in this 
other area! A. Well, you can tell by looking at the map 
that the negro population is concentrated.

Q. In which area? A. The black dots on the map rep­
resent the negro students. You can see they are concen­
trated in East Athens and the College Avenue area.

Q. This map that you are referring to is a map approxi­
mately twelve or fifteen feet long by about nine to ten 
feet tall hanging on the wall of this room? A. That is 
correct.



—  1 1 4  —

Q. This is the only map on which you can really deter­
mine the composition and the lineation of the pockets 
from, is it not! A. Yes, sir.

Q. The maps that have been prepared for distribution 
to the public and which we have been referring to here, 
the [227] green maps do not show the delineation of the 
pockets, do they! A. This map, in order to get it to this 
scale and on a letter size sheet of paper, this was the only 
map that was available to us. We did have this repro­
duced in a map of this size.

Q. This is another map on the wall here! A. Right, sir. 
The cost of reproducing these maps prohibits their being 
widely disbursed.

Q. Yes, sir, but this other map that you are referring 
to is about five or six feet long by about four feet tall, 
is it not! A. Yes, sir.

Q. And, you do not have more than one copy of each 
of these maps, would that be true! A. We had several 
maps, or copies of maps, and they are in the elementary 
schools.

Q. Doesn’t the small map that you are referring to, 
does it accurately show the pockets! A. All except for 
one and this is in the Paldo section.

Q. Which section! A. The Paldo section.
Q. What I am not certain I understand is how you 

determined which particular negro students would be in­
cluded within a given pocket, did you have any uniform 
criteria or standard that you started out with, or did you 
simply select and find a group that included the number 
that you needed, and selected them because they contained 
the number that you were looking for! [228] A. We 
looked at a concentration of students and drew a line 
that would encompass the number of people we needed.

Q. Is it true that under this compromise plan that 
streets are being split so that students on one side are



—  1 1 5

going to one school, and students on the other side will 
go to the other school? A. Down the middle of the street, 
no. We might consider this in the Paldo section. The 
housing authority has just given us that information 
showing exactly where the children live in the Paldo 
section. In order to get the correct number of students, 
I believe to send to Whitehead, it might be necessary to 
aline them down the middle. I hope not.

Q. All right, sir. Now, the sole purpose of assigning 
those students within the pockets outside their zones was 
to achieve racial balance in the schools to which they 
were being assigned, is that right? A. Sir, as far as I 
was concerned, we were just satisfying the criteria.

Q. 20%/40%? A. Yes.
Q. And in all cases the schools to which these children 

residing within the pockets were assigned or bussed, those 
schools were farther from their homes than the schools 
which were located in their district? A. This is true.

Q. Now, there are five pockets? A. Right, sir.
Q. And four districts? A. Right, sir.
Q. Are all of the students that are being assigned out 

of those pockets being transported, or are some of them 
being required to walk? [229] A. The ones in the Rock 
Springs Homes and the West Broad Street are being re­
quired to walk.

Q. Have you checked to determine whether or not Mrs. 
Otis Sims, Mrs. Eddie Cross and Emma Young reside in 
the Rock Springs Homes? A. I don’t know, sir.

Q. Assuming that they do, it would be true, would it 
not, that their children would be required to attend which 
school? A. Barrow.

Q. But, the school serving that zone would be? A. West 
Broad.

Q. And, it would also be true, would it not, that the 
Barrow school is considerably farther from the Rock



1 1 6  —

Springs Homes than is the West Broad School! A. It is 
farther. I don’t know if it would be considerably so or 
not.

Q. Isn’t it true that the Barrow school is approximately 
a mile and a half of the Rock Springs Homes! A. That 
is so.

Q. Isn’t a mile and a half the point in which the stu­
dent is entitled to transportation! A. Yes.

Q. The students just do come within the mile and a 
half limit so they are not entitled to transportation! A. 
Sir, we haven’t measured. We used the scale on the map 
and determined that it was within a mile and a half.

Q. Other than the Rock Springs Homes students, are 
there any negro students in any of the pockets who are 
not being bussed? A. No, sir.
[230] Q. Will you go to the map on the wall there, Mr. 
Moran! Referring to the East Athens school zone, how 
many negro students are being bussed to the Gaines 
School! A. This map indicates that seventy-five students 
live in the area.

Q. How many in the East Athens zone will be bussed 
to Barnett Shoals! A. A very small percent.

Q. How many are being bussed out of the College Ave­
nue district to the Whitehead Road school? A. Eighty- 
eight on the map.

Q. How many are being bussed out of the Oglethorpe 
zone to the Whitehead Road? A. Fifty.

Q. And from West Broad to David Barrow School? A. 
One hundred and thirty-one.

Q. And from College Avenue to Whitehead Road, I be­
lieve you have given me that? A. Yes—eighty-eight.

Q. Why was University Heights community placed in 
the East Athens school zone, Mr. Moran? A. Sir, actually, 
as Mr. Fleming has already indicated to you, this was



1 1 7  —

one of the most difficult decisions we had to make. We 
tried to work on this area and we were not successful, 
and we had to go around the entire map and assign the 
University Heights to East Athens. But, it was put into 
East Athens because of the situation we have on the map. 
We tried to get the white population in East Athens from 
the Winterville area, but there are two hundred and 
eleven white dots in this zone. University Heights has 
one hundred and thirty-four. We would have had to
[231] take practically the whole of the Winterville zone 
in order to get a sufficient number. If we had, what 
would we have done with the Winterville school!

Q. That would have been asuming you maintained the 
Winterville zone lines where you had put them. A. Well, 
the way the area is settled in and around Winterville, 
they have no concentrations, you could go nowhere to 
get a small number other than in the outlying area.

Q. What was to prevent you from making the Northern 
part of the Winterville line moved up further North! A. 
You immediately run into Fowler Drive.

Q. What would prevent you from moving it further 
South! A. You would run into Gaines.

Q. What would prevent you from putting University 
Heights in the Gaines district! A. The Gaines area is 
actually is drawn up to its mile and a half point.

Q. You are not saying, are you Mr. Moran, that there 
is no way possible under which the University Heights 
community could be put in any school zone except East 
Athens! A. Sir, I was trying to explain that to you. The 
only direction we had to go in was the South.

Q. How many students are being bussed from Univer­
sity Heights community to East Athens! A. One hundred 
and thirty four.

Q. How many negro pupils will be in East Athens 
school! A. We have those statistics.



—  1 1 8  —

Q. Where are those statistics? A. Right here. There 
will be 242 negros.
[232] Q. Take the 134 and subtract it from the 309 and 
tell me what that will leave? A. I have 175.

Q. Now, add 175 to the number of negro pupils in the 
East Athens zone. A. That would be 417.

Q. So, that would represent the number of white pupils 
in the East Athens zone, excluding the University Heights 
community, plus all of the negro students, is that right! 
A. That is correct.

Q. Tell me what the ratio in that school would be if 
you simply assigned those students to that school only. 
A. It would be roughly sixty percent negro.

Q. Have you determined what the percentages will be 
as the zones are now constituted? Would you mind look­
ing at that and adding them up again. A. I would need a 
calculator.

Q. Let’s consider it during recess. Actually, if you had 
excluded University Heights Community, you would have 
had a school in East Athens with 60% negro and 40% 
white, wouldn’t you? A. Yes.

Q. You have other schools in the system that are ap­
proximately 60% white and 40% negro, don’t you? A. Yes.

Q. You have many of them? A. Yes.
Q. Do you know of any reason why that school could 

not have been permitted to be 60% negro and 40% white? 
A. Sir, the Board gave us the criteria.
[233] Q. Why was this exception made with respect to 
East Athens and West Broad so as to exclude them from 
this otherwise uniform rule of not less than 20 or more 
than 40% negro? A. That was the Board’s decision.

Q. Who specifically suggested this? A. I don’t recall.
Q. You were not present when it was brought up? A. I 

was present, but there was a good deal of discussion.



—  1 1 9

Q. What was the reason that was given at that time 
for this exception? A. I don’t know that a reason was 
given actually. They were just trying to arrive at cri­
teria that would bring about a compromise. We had 
guidelines to follow.

Q. Would it be fair to say that it was just a political 
compromise? A. No, I don’t think it would.

Q. Well, it was a compromise among Board members? 
A. Yes.

Q. And, you don’t know what motivated the compro­
mise? A. The Board members decided.

Q. Which Board members thought that these two schools 
ought to be separately treated? A. I don’t remember who 
they were.

Q. It is true, is it not, that the only reason that people 
were pocketed out of East Athens, and the University 
Heights people were included in the district lines was to 
attempt to comply with this 20/40 rule, or, in this in­
stance, the exception to that rule? A. Right.

Q. Are you familiar with the East Athens school area? 
Are you also familiar with the University Heights school 
area? [234] A. Yes, sir.

Q. There is not a great deal of similarity as far as 
those two communities are concerned, is there? A. I 
wouldn’t think so.

Q. Isn’t it true that the Barnett Shoals school is per­
haps one of the newest and most modern buildings in the 
system? A. This is a fact.

Q. Whereas the East Athens is perhaps, after you close 
the Oconee Street School which I believe you do this year, 
don’t you? A. We will use it for other purposes.

Q. Other purposes than for an elementary school? A. 
Yes, sir.



—  1 2 0

Q. With the proposing of the abandonment of that 
school as an elementary school, it is true that the East 
Athens school is one of the oldest schools, isn’t it1? A. 
Actually the East Athens is------

Q. It is over eighteen years old, isn’t it? A. I don’t 
know the date of construction.

Q. It is considerably older than Barnett Shoals, isn’t it? 
A. A lot of schools in the system are older than Barnett 
Shoals.

Q. What it means is that pupils who have previously 
been in one of the newest schools in the system are now 
being assigned to one of the oldest schools, is that right? 
A. Yes, sir.

Q. There are areas in both Gaines and the Winterville 
school district that are closer to East Athens school than 
is the University Heights community? A. Yes, the Gaines 
school would be, I mean the Gaines area would be within 
a mile and a half.
[235] Q. Of the East Athens? A. It would be within a 
mile and a half of Gaines.

Q. Yes, sir, but there are areas that are now included 
in the Gaines, and also areas that are now included within 
the Winterville district which are closer to the East Athens 
school than is University Heights? A. This is true, but 
our criteria was that we were to reduce transportation 
as much as possible. The Gaines children could walk to 
the Gaines school, but in Winterville, you have no con­
centration of students.

Q. That same thing would not be true with respect to 
Winterville? A. I say at Winterville you would have to 
take the entire area to get enough students, and you have 
no concentration in that area that you do in University 
Heights.

Q. Mr. Moran, are there any white pupils in any outly­
ing area besides University Heights that are being bussed



—  1 2 1

in to one of the inner city schools? . . . other than the 
one that Dr. McDaniel referred to as Camelot? A. Jackson.

Q. Where is that ? A. The area off of the Jefferson River 
Road.

Q. What is that area called? A. I believe it is called 
Oconee Heights.

Q. Where are those students attending school under this 
plan? A. They are going to North Athens.

Q. Where did they attend school last year! A. White- 
head.

Q. North Athens is not one of the two schools that ex­
ceeds the 20/40 ratio, is it? A. No.

[236] Q. Were those pupils bussed last year! A. No.

Q. They were not bussed last year, but they are being 
bussed this year? A. Right. The reason, when we first 
started with the area around Whitehead being the one 
and a half mile point. Then we had to reduce the num­
ber of Whitehead students in order to create room, I 
mean the number of white students in order to make room 
to meet the criteria. This area is being transferred in to 
North Athens when we decided we were going to have 
to break within the mile and a half point. The busses 
in this area would pass through going to North Athens.

Q. In other words, this was also done to achieve some 
sort of racial balance with your guidelines? A. Yes.

Q. Do you know of any group of white students com­
parable to the size of University Heights who are being- 
required to attend a different school than the one they 
did last year? One hundred and thirty students, I believe 
you said. A. I don’t know the number that we are dealing 
with, but the Fortson Driver, Cloverhurst and around Mil- 
lege, these children went to Barrow last year, and they 
are now required to go to Barrow.



—  1 2 2  —

Q. The question is how many are in this category that 
went to Barrow last year that are being required to go 
to West Broad? A. It looks like eighty or ninety.

Q. Are they within a mile and a half of West Broad? 
A. Yes, sir.

Q. They are not being bussed? A. No.
[237] Q. Any others? A. The area north of West Broad 
Street itself.

Q. Where did they go last year? A. They went to Chase 
Street.

Q. Where are they going this year? A. To West Broad.
Q. All right, sir, and they are not being bussed either? 

A. No.
Q. Mr. Moran, I am not sure—you gave me some figures 

of white pupils that are going to schools different from 
last year in the West part of the county, were those people 
in the Whitehead school zone last year? A. Yes, sir. 
Actually, Dr. Browne was just telling me I did not give a 
complete run down here.

Q. Do you know this yourself, or is this just something 
he told you? A. These children went to Whitehead last 
year, and they are going to North Athens.

Q. They will be bussed to North Athens and they were 
bussed to Whitehead last year? A. Right. The entire 
Tallassee Road. They were bussed to Whitehead last year 
and will be bussed to North Athens this year.

Q. North Athens is not one of the schools that is an 
exception to the 20/40 ratio, is it? A. This is correct.

Q. Are there any white students in the Whitehead dis­
trict that are being transferred or assigned to some other 
district? A. Yes, sir, the Ruth Street section.

Q. They, of course, are within a mile and a half of the 
school they are going to attend? A. Yes, sir.
[238] Q. So, they are not being bussed? A. No.



—  1 2 3

Q. Are there any students who were in the Winterville 
district last year that are being assigned to another school? 
Any white students. A. I believe the Hull Road right in 
here are.

Q. You say you believe, don’t you know? A. I am not 
sure.

Q. Where are they being sent? A. They are being sent 
to Fowler.

Q. Are they being bussed or are they within a mile and 
a half? A. They are being bussed.

Q. How many are in that category? A. It looks about 
like twenty five.

Q. Last year didn’t the Board of Education furnish 
breakfast to the students at East Athens elementary? A. 
I believe they did under Title 1.

Q. Did all of the students at East Athens receive break­
fast or just some of them? A. I don’t know for sure.

Q. It is true, is it not, that as a result of this desegrega­
tion plan that you will no longer serve breakfast at the 
East Athens elementary school? A. I don’t know.

Q. Does anyone else know? A. I ’m not sure.
Q. Who would know? A. The decision hasn’t been 

made.
Q. Isn’t it true that the entitlement of the school under

[239] this program to participate under this Title 1 pro­
gram is dependent upon the socio-economic, or rather the 
economic complexion of the particular school district being 
served by it? A. I am not an expert in the federal pro­
gram, but it is my understanding we will be entitled to 
the Title 1 program in more schools.

Q. Will breakfast be served to all the pupils in these 
schools? A. I don’t know.

Q. Who does know. A. Mr. Anderson.
Q. Mr. Anderson? A. Yes, Mr. Charles Anderson.



—  1 2 4  —

Q. Mr. Moran, did you have anything to do with the 
achievement tests? A. No.

Q. Do you know anything about them? A. No.
Q. Then, who does? A. Dr. Booth.
Q. Where is your home on this map? A. It is in the 

Whitehead area.
Q. Do you have any elementary children? A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Where will they go? A. Whitehead.
Q. Is that where they went last year? A. One of them 

was in school at Whitehead, but the other went to kinder­
garten at West Broad.
[240] Q. How close is your home to the West Broad 
School? A. My house is situated here.

Q. Is it more than a mile and a half? A. Quite a bit 
more.

Cross-Examination, by Mr. Epting

Q. Why was the cost of transportation higher in 1968- 
69, substantially higher than in previous years? A. Yes, 
sir, I understand it was.

Q. Will you state what the major difference was, and 
what accounted for it? A. I think it would be attributa­
ble to several factors. One was the routing of the busses 
and another the number of older busses we operated. We 
have made plans to improve this system this year. An­
other factor would be that we had to haul students to 
Oglethorpe.

Q. Do you know approximately how many students were 
transported to North Avenue from the Oglethorpe schools 
that won’t have to be transported? A. I would say that 
it would be probably around three fifty to four hundred.

Q. Did all of those have to be transported to North 
Athens last year? A. Yes, sir.



—  1 2 5

Q. All right, now, in regard to Plan B that has been 
discussed, could you state whether or not that would have 
necessitated changes in school room facilities such as 
desks, blackboards, etc. A. Yes, it would.

Q. Would that have been true in all of the schools? 
A. Yes, it would.

Q. I will ask you one other question. The motion filed 
by the plaintiffs here says that Mrs. Mattox who lives at
[241] 489 Peters Street has children who went to East 
Athens last year who this year, on account of this plan, 
will be bussed to some other school. Have you checked 
that to see whether it is true or not? A. No, I haven’t 
checked, but it is not true.

Q. Where will her children go to school? A. East 
Athens.

Redirect Examination, by Mr. Leverett

Q. Mr. Moran, isn’t it true that this exception was 
carved out with respect to East Athens and West Broad 
is that it was done so at the request of Board member Mr. 
Jones? A. I don’t think it was actually done at his re­
quest. He has given his thoughts about the negro being 
swallowed up by the white community, but I don’t believe 
it was Mr. Jones that made that suggestion.

Q. Mr. Moran, isn’t it true that educationally you your­
self favor Plan B. A. Sir, it is not for me to say. This is 
the Board’s decision.

Q. You have expressed yourself previously before this 
Board took action to the effect that you thought Plan B 
was the best plan, haven’t you? A. Sir, once again, this 
is the Board’s decision, not mine.

Q. Now, if cost alone were to be the criteria, the neigh­
borhood school plan which the Board adopted and then 
rejected after H. E. W. rejected it would have been the 
best plan, would it not? A. Cost wise, yes.



— 126 —

DR. FRUSANNA SNEED BOOTH
having been previously sworn, testified as follows:

Direct Examination, by Mr. Leverett

Q. State your name and address, please. [242] A. Fru- 
sanna Sneed Booth, Route 1, Madison, Georgia.

Q. You are a Ph. D. A. I have a Doctor of Education 
degree.

Q. Doctor Booth, what is your title with the Clarke 
County Board of Education? A. Director of Instruction.

Q. How long have you been with the system? A. Two 
years.

Q. Prior to that, how long have you worked in school 
systems in education? A. Well, off and on since 1942.

Q. What particular aspect of the Clarke County school 
system are you most concerned with? A. Well, I have 
some responsibility to assist Dr. McDaniel and Dr. Ellis 
in the administrative matters. My chief responsibilities 
lie in providing educational opportunities for children, 
working with the principals and teachers to improve the 
quality of education.

Q. In that capacity have you had an occasion to be­
come involved in the testing programs for the pupils, par­
ticularly the elementary pupils in Clarke County? A. We 
have a person who is in charge of the testing program; a 
pupil personnel and staff personnel director. I personally 
have not been involved with any testing.

Q. I was just told that you were. Who is the person 
who is actually familiar with the testing? A. Now, I am 
familiar with the testing, but I am not actively involved 
in the testing.

Q. You have reviewed? A. I have reviewed the results.
Q. When was this testing administered to the children? 

A. On which grade level.



—  1 2 7

[243] Q. Take all of the elementary grades. A. We nor­
mally test our children on the schedule of 1, 3, 5, 7 and a 
high school testing program which would vary.

Q. When were these grades tested last? A. The first 
grade was tested in the Fall beginning in September or 
the first of October with a readiness test in May with an 
achievement test. The 3rd, 5th and 7th grades were 
tested in the month of October with a mental maturity 
and a basic skills.

Q. Is it true that an I. Q. or mental maturity test is a 
sign that tests one’s potential for learning? A. We used to 
think this. We now think it is his learned capabilities at 
this time.

Q. Are you saying that an I. Q. test will test the same 
thing as achievement? A. Partially and partially not. It 
is aimed a little different. Our tests in achievement now 
are tests of basic skill. The other does test more of the 
child’s background, but we have long since learned in 
educational circles that I. Q. is not a constant, but it can 
be changed, and we do change I. Q.

Q. But, it is correct to say that I. Q. is more directed 
toward potential than achievement? A. At that particular 
time, to test his potential for a year’s work or that 
month’s work, but not the future possibilities.

'Q. Dr. Booth, is there any difference, according to your 
recollection, between the I. Q. or achievement of children 
in the University Heights community and the elemental y 
pupils in the East Athens elementary area? A. Are you 
talking about as a block of people?

Q. Yes, m’am? [244] A. Of course, I  have the University 
Heights people mixed in with the Barnett Shoals children, 
and that would encompass more than just University 
Heights. The University Heights area as it is encom­
passed within the Barnett Shoals, you would have all the 
different levels of ability from the retarded to the highly 
gifted child.



1 2 8  —

Q. Take the mean I. Q. level of the University Heights 
and Barnett Shoals area, would it be higher or lower than 
the mean I. Q. for the comparable grade level in the East 
Athens area? A. I think that we would know without even 
looking at the test scores that it would be higher because 
the children’s opportunities are greater.

Q. When you say opportunities, what do you mean- 
social? A. Social background, yes, sir.

Q. Socio-economic—does that effect the I. Q. ? A. I think 
it effects everything about us. This is one of the basic 
premises, I guess, for feeling that they should be mixed. 
I don’t know.

Q. Do you favor this heterogeneous grouping of stu­
dents? A. Yes, sir, I do.

Q. You are in favor of it? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Consequently, you were in favor of Plan B, were 
you not? A. Let me straighten one thing out now. Plan 
B was developed by—I worked on Plan B as assigned by 
the group from the university—the University of Georgia 
Desegregation staff. I also worked on the geographical 
zoning which came about following the rejection of the 
Neighborhood School Plan. [245] I also worked on the 
compromise plan, so I have worked on all three. All 
three were developed in line with the criteria which 
were given us to work on at that particular time. My 
assignment by the University of Georgia Desegregation 
staff was to work on the re-organization of the plan, and 
under this I was working with the re-organizational 
structure.

Q. My question was though because of your belief in 
the desirability of mixing these diverse elements, you 
would favor Plan B, wouldn’t you? A. Sir, Plan B was 
the only thing—we were not given freedom to go beyond 
Plan B. We worked on a criteria, so the criteria on which



—  1 2 9  —

we worked was to develop a re-organization plan using 
the criteria that was given. This was an assignment.

Q. As an educator, don’t you agree that Plan B is 
sounder educationally than the compromise that was 
adopted? A. The determination of this was school board 
policy. My problem is after the school board had adopted 
a policy to then work on the quality of education as it 
can he obtained within that plan.

Q. I am quite familiar with your task, but I am asking 
you for your own opinion. Isn’t Plan B preferable edu­
cationally than the compromise plan that was adopted? 
A. I think you would have to put a time element in there. 
If this were last January, I might agree with you, yes. 
Even as late as March 19th when we were given this 
instruction to develop this, and I believe that is the date 
on which we were called together. We still would have 
been running a very close time as far as I was con­
cerned in getting the maximum potential from B or what­
ever a similar plan was brought about.

Q. Plan B was developed and completed at a time which 
would [246] have enabled it to have been put into opera­
tion without a great deal of difficulty, wasn’t it? A. It 
was completed prior to the end of school.

Q. Why is it that you considered Plan B preferable to 
the compromise plan? A. You mean when?

Q. Why? A. I didn’t say this.
Q. You said if you had had to make the choice back 

at a previous time that you would have considered Plan 
B preferable. A. All right, at that time I would have. 
Now, I would not have.

Q. Why is that? A. Because I think it could have been 
implemented then. I think it would be extremely dif­
ficult to implement it now.

Q. In other words, the reason is because of the time 
limit? A. Yes.



1 3 0

i

Q. Why back then would you have considered it pref­
erable educationally to the compromise! A. I guess one 
thing would he based upon the fact that I thought more 
parents could accept Plan B than could accept any other 
plan. I think part of what we attain with children is 
based upon how parents feel about what we are doing 
with the children, and we could have gotten the force of 
parents maybe more behind us with that plan from cer­
tain segments of the community. I think there would 
have been other segments of the community who would 
have found it just as difficult to accept Plan B. I haven’t 
yet found what I would consider the plan if I were 
looking at the total thing.

Q. Isn’t it true that Plan B would more nearly suit all 
[247] of the pupils, I mean treat all of them alike more 
than the compromise plan would! A. If you are talking 
in terms of the racial composition, this would be true.

Q. Isn’t it true that under Plan B there was no induce­
ment to white people or parents to move out in order 
to avoid being desegregated! A. This might be true. This 
was one of the things that was developed as one of the 
criteria set up by the Desegregation group from the Uni­
versity of Georgia.

Q. Isn’t it also true that the achievement scores of the 
pupils in the University Heights community, the mean or 
the average, would be higher than those in the East 
Athens area! A. Yes, this is true.

Q. Do you have any idea of the approximate difference 
between the—first, let me ask you this, the mean I. Q. 
for the nation is considered to be 100, isn’t that right! 
A. This is supposedly true, but the mean I. Q. of the 
children tested for the data that standardized the test we 
are now using, the mean I. Q. was 107.

Q. For which area! A. This was a nationwide cross- 
section.



1 3 1  —

Q. What groups of tests were administered! A. We 
were using the California Test of Basic Skills. This is 
a new test, with new normings.

Q. The new norm is 107? A. 107 is the norm I. Q. for 
the group of children as tested and the standardization 
of this group. Whether that is true for all levels, I don’t 
know, but I think that is fairly accurate.
[248] Q. It is sound to place in one school children of 
widely varying socio-economic background? Would you 
explain that theory and why it is so. A. I guess as we 
move through life as adults, we deal with people from all 
different levels of educational backgrounds and all other 
things. It makes sense to me that we can best work with 
them the earlier we get them in understanding and be­
coming more emphathetic with each other and better 
understanding of each other. There is also something to 
this business of children from varying backgrounds chal­
lenging each other, and I think each contributes to the 
other’s education, and these things help each one to bet­
ter understand the other one, their understanding of life.

Q. Won’t it be true, Dr. Booth, that the East Athens 
school will necessitate some type of tracking, won’t some 
type of tracking be necessary? A. I would recommend, 
I couldn’t help but laugh because this is the first time I 
have heard myself disagree with Dr. McDaniel since his 
arrival here. I would as the Director of Instruction 
strongly recommend that we have no tracking, but rather 
that we regroup for certain types of instruction, and in 
other types of instruction provide different types of media 
for children to learn through, and yet leave them to work 
together.

Q. Well, Dr. Booth, are you saying that it is feasible 
to teach one class of say twenty pupils who have an I. Q. 
of 106 and 107 along with another group who have I. Q.’s 
of 82 and 84? A. We have done this for years, sir. This 
isn’t limited to color.



—  1 3 2  —

Q. I am not arguing that. It is feasible and educa­
tionally [249] desirable, is it not! A. Yes, it is.

Q. What happens------  A. If they get below the 82
mark or below the 80 mark, then we call them exceptional 
children and put them in a educational retarded class 
where the room can handle them.

Q. Isn’t the dividing line 75 rather than 80! A. It can 
go up to 80. Legally, they like for it to hold at 75, but 
we can include them up to 80.

Q. But, isn’t it more educationally acceptable to track 
them so that you have in one group those students that 
do not range too far from the norm! A. Would you de­
fine educationally acceptable to me, please.

Q. I am asking you to define it. A. To me it would 
not be more educationally acceptable.

Q. You are in a minority with respect to that view, are 
you not! A. I might have been years ago, but I think that 
you will find that more and more are returning to this 
view.

Q. Are you familiar with the tracking system used in 
the District of Columbia! A. Yes, I am familiar with the 
tracking system used in Dekalb County and, of course, I 
had read some others, but I am not familiar. I am familiar 
enough with the District of Columbia to know that the 
superintendent resigned.

Q. Are you familiar enough with it to know that there 
was a massive withdrawal of the whites! A. Yes.

Q. Do you understand the reason for that withdrawal? 
A. Yes.

Q. What is the difference between, roughly between the

mean [250] I. Q. of a grade level in the University Heights 
community as compared to the East Athens school zone? 
A. I do not know.



—  1 3 3  —

Q. You don’t have any idea how much it might be? A. 
I would just assume that it would be about ten points. 
Now, this is just a guess, and it is not even a good esti­
mate.

Q. Dr. Booth, why weren’t these test scores released to 
some people from the University Heights community who 
came to you within the last few days and requested them? 
A. My statement to the person who came to me was, and 
I will repeat that statement—not verbatim—was that I 
saw no long range good that could he accomplished. These 
are actually, and I did not say this, but this is the actual 
case. We do not release the test scores, really, very freely 
anywhere. They are confidential information.

Q. You have them in the file, do you not, without regard 
to individuals in the terms of mean, and in terms of % 
below the means and % above the mean? A. I don’t know 
exactly what the division is, but there are three divisions, 
plus the mean.

Q. There is no harm in releasing the overall scores that 
do not identify particular people, is there? A. I would 
think that it would not accomplish any good.

Q. Aren’t you saying that it would cause the parents 
concern to see the diverse situations that are given, I 
mean going to develop within a school as a result of this 
plan? A. In any of these, we would have varying numbers 
of children who had different degrees of proficiency on 
test taking and, of course, some of this is proficiency in 
test taking; but, we would have all different levels in all 
the schools. Now, I think unless the total data could be 
released, then, this would [251] really, I think, accomplish 
no meaningful purpose.

Q. Then, it would be true, or is true, is it not, that 
there will be a much greater diversity achievement and 
mental maturity in the East Athens school in the coming 
school year than there was previously? A. Yes.



—  1 3 4  —

CHARLES H. ANDERSON,
being first duly sworn, testified as follows:

Direct Examination, by Mr. Leverett
Q. State your name and address, please. A. My name 

is Charles H. Anderson, and I live at 235 Fortson Drive, 
Athens, Georgia.

Q. Mr. Anderson, what is your title with the Clarke 
County Board of Education? A. I am Co-ordinator of 
Federal Programs.

Q. And, in that capacity, you have the responsibility in 
connection with Title 1 of E. S. E. A. ? A. I do.

Q. And, last year, I ask you whether or not the Clarke 
County Board of Education did have a breakfast program 
at East Athens elementary school? A. That program was 
operated in two schools last year. One at East Athens and 
one at College Avenue. These programs were in part sub­
ject to E. S. E. A., I mean funded by E. S. E. A. Title 1 
funds.

Q. Were these breakfast made available to all the stu­
dents attending those schools? A. No, they were not.

Q. What would be the status of this breakfast program 
with respect to East Athens for this coming school year? 
[252] A. It has not been determined as yet; therefore, I 
am not sure that I would be prepared to give you an exact 
answer.

Q. Who makes the determination? A. The determina­
tion would be made in conjunction with perhaps two or 
three or four people—those persons who are responsible 
for the operation of the program are Mrs. Johnson, the 
school dietician—perhaps the Director of the People Per­
sonnel Services, the superintendent of the schools, the Di­
rector of Instruction and myself.



—  1 3 5

Q. Isn’t it true that last year in determining the fact 
as to whether a particular student would have a breakfast 
was based upon some economic situation of the constit­
uents of that school? A. Of the certain criteria that the 
State Department of Education has established, the eco­
nomic factor would be one of the several criteria.

Q. Was that a collective economic situation, or was it 
the individual pupils? In other words, did you determine 
it by what percentage of pupils within a given school 
come from families that have less than a certain annual 
income? How did you determine this? A. I am not sure 
that I would be prepared to state this. I am not prepared 
to state the several criteria that have been established in 
relation to this point of economics; however, I believe it 
is on the basis of an individual family income or the 
family income of an individual child. One other criteria 
that I recall has to do with the perhaps number of children 
in the school who had come from disadvantaged homes. 
Perhaps a third criteria has to do with the distance the 
children travel [253] in the morning on their way to 
school.

Q. But, as a result of this new school desegregation 
plan, it is possible that the breakfast program that was 
conducted at East Athens last year will not be conducted 
this coming school year? A. I think that would be in­
correct to draw that conclusion.

Q. Has it been determined that it will be continued? 
A. No, sir, as I indicated this decision has not been made. 
It is under study at this point.

Q. Has it been determined whether or not any of these 
negro pupils who are in any one of these five pockets, 
how will this affect them by being in a pocket, will it 
cause them to become less eligible than they were last 
year? A. I would think just the contrary. As a matter 
of fact, the farther they have to go to school might make 
them more eligible.



—  1 3 6

Q. Suppose as a result of being pocketed or bussed or 
assigned out, they are put in a school where the overall 
average economic consideration is much higher than it 
was in the school they previously attended, would that 
effect their entitlement? A. As a group, yes.

MRS, OTIS SIMS,
having been previously sworn, testified as follows:

Direct Examination, by Mr. Leverett
Q. Mrs. Sims, state your name, please. A. Kathleen 

Sims.
Q. Where do you live? A. 205 Rock Springs Homes. 

[254] Q. Rock Springs Homes? A. Yes sir.
Q. You have the custody of some grandchildren? A. 

One, yes, sir.
Q. How old is he or she? A. She will be eleven in 

December.
Q. What is her name? A. Brenda Josephine.
Q. What school did she attend last year? A. Alps 

Road.
Q. What school will she attend this year? A. I want 

her to go to West Broad. She is right in it.
Q. Have you been told which school she was going to 

attend? A. Barrow.
Q. Barrow school? A. Yes.
Q. When she went to Alps Road last year, was she 

bussed or did she walk? A. She walked. She wasn’t 
staying with me. She was staying with her mother.

Q. Er, where were the pupils that lived in the homes 
that you live in, where did they go last year? What 
school did they attend? A. West Broad.

Q. How far was that? A. I reckon about two blocks.



—  1 3 7  —

Q. And, you understand that they are going to Barrow 
this coming school year! A. That’s right.

Q. About how far is that! [255] A. I don’t know. 
They say that it is about a mile and a half.

Q. They have to walk that distance! A. That is what 
they say. The people are poor and ain’t got no 
transportation.

Q. Where would you prefer that your granddaughter 
go! A. West Broad.

Q. Is it going to make it difficult for you to get her 
to Barrow school in the mornings! A. Yes sir, I couldn’t 
get her there.

Cross-Examination, by Mr. Epting

Q. Are you familiar with the West Broad school area! 
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Are you in favor of this business of mixing up 
the white children and the colored children in school! 
A. I am not in favor, but as it is they have to go I 
guess.

Q. If all the children within a mile and a half of West 
Broad went to West Broad, it would be practically all 
colored, wouldn’t it! A. In would be better too.

Q. There wouldn’t be any room for any white children 
in there, would it! A. It would be better too.

Q. You think it would be better if they were all colored! 
A. Yes, all colored.

DANIEL F. HOBBS, JR.,
having been previously sworn, testified as follows:

Direct Examination, by Mr. Leverett

Q. Give us your name and address, please sir. [256] A. 
My name is Daniel F. Hobbs, Jr., and I live at 310 Uni­
versity Circle.



—  1 3 8  —

Q. Would you state very briefly your education? A. 
I have a Bachelor’s degree in psychology, a Master’s de­
gree in child development and family relations, and a 
Ph.D. in child development.

Q. Where did you obtain these degrees? A. The Bache­
lor’s degree and the Master’s degree were obtained at 
Florida State University. The Ph.D. at Penn State.

Q. What is your employment or profession? A. I am 
a university professor.

Q. How long have you been in that position? A. At 
the University of Georgia or total?

Q. Give me the university first and then the total. A. 
I have been with the University of Georgia two years, 
and totally at the University of Florida since 1957.

Q. In what part of Clarke County is your home lo­
cated? A. In University Heights which is in the South­
east portion of the county.

Q. Is it outside the city of Athens? A. Yes.
Q. Approximately how many families live in this com­

munity? A. By our count and the survey that was made 
since this problem came up, and I believe we have one 
hundred and ninety-four.

Q. Families? A. Yes.
Q. Describe very generally the area of the University 

Heights community, the size, the type of homes, the type 
of neighborhood, and other considerations? A. I think 
I could do this a little bit easier and quicker [257] if I 
stuck by some notes. There are 195, plus several homes 
which are under construction. All of them are a single 
family dwelling, the standard pattern for Athens, unless 
you are rich, which is three bedrooms, two baths, and that 
is about it, with a carport. The educational level of the 
people who live in the area, which is an all white area, 
is that all but four are high school graduates or above;



—  1 3 9  —

there are 84 college graduates; 43 people hold Master’s 
degrees; 51 hold doctoral degrees; 7 have done post doc­
toral work; 12 are working toward a doctoral degree at 
the present time. The information concerning children is 
that there are, according to our survey, and there were 
some seventeen families who were on vacation or what­
ever and could not be contacted, is that we have a total 
of 139 elementary children distributed with 28 in the first 
grade, 27 in the second grade, 25 in the third grade, 12 
in the fourth grade, 24 in the fifth and 22 in the sixth 
grade. These will no doubt change as other people move 
in, if they move in, and the people who are there remain 
there.

Q. What is the age of most of the homes in this area? 
A. It depends on which side of the College Station Road 
you are on. The houses on the North side of College Sta­
tion are somewhat older being, I would estimate, eight 
to ten years old, and the houses on the South side of Uni­
versity Heights or College Station, but still in the Uni­
versity Heights division are from anywhere to unbuilt to 
probably four years maximum.

Q. What are the price ranges of the homes in this area? 
A. It depends on whether you are asking before the plan 
was announced or not? In all seriousness, we have had 
suggestions [258] from Realtors that there has been some 
impact. The house cost 'would range—I suspect you might 
find a few houses that might be around $19,000.00, and 
you could probably find a few above $30,000.00; but, they 
are generally from $20,000.00 to $30,000.00.

Q. Would you in referring to Movant’s Exhibit 4 or 
Plaintiff’s Exhibit 4, would you put a circle around the 
University Heights area and put your initials by that 
circle to identify it. A. I will encircle the entire area. 
We have some questions as to whether or not the School 
Board has included these streets which have been added. 
I assume that they have.



1 4 0  —

Q. Since this plan has been announced, has there been 
any for sale signs gone up in your community? A. Yes.

Q. How many? A. I haven’t counted them, but there 
were two that were available the next day. There was one 
man who is selling his house, but has agreed in order to 
try to work with the community not to place a for sale 
sign in front of it. A Realtor who works for University 
Heights reports that there are a number of empty houses.

Mr. Epting: I don’t think we should go into that.

Mr. Leverett: I agree. Unless you have seen them your­
self, you couldn’t testify to the validity.

A. I can only report that there are people from our 
community who have made surveys, but I couldn’t say 
how many houses are vacant.

Q. Do you personally know the persons who are named 
as movants in this motion for re-consideration, other than 
perhaps Mrs. Sims and the ones that were added today?
[259] A. I have met all of them. I know five of them per­
sonally.

Q. Where do they live? A. All of them, to the best of 
my knowledge, live in University Heights, with the ex­
ception of those who were added today.

Q. Are there other persons in the University Heights 
community who are not named into this motion, but who 
are also objecting to this compromise plan? A. Yes.

Q. They are assisting you and the other movants finan­
cially and otherwise? A. Yes.

Q. Do you know approximately how many there are? 
A. 78.

Q. I ask you whether or not they authorized you and 
the other movants to bring this motion on their behalf? 
A. They did in an open meeting which was attended by 
both opposition and approvals of it.



—  1 4 1  —

Q. How many elementary children do you have? A. 
Two.

Q. Would you name them and give their ages and grades 
they will attend. A. Susan who will be a third grader has 
just turned eight years of age. Douglas who is an oncom­
ing sixth grader who will be twelve in December.

Q. Do all of the other movants have children who will 
attend elementary schools in Clarke County, Georgia, in 
September of this year? A. Yes, ranging from one to four 
children.

Q. What is the profession or employment of most of the
[260] people in the University Heights community? A. 
Well, this being a university town, and that being Univer­
sity Heights, I think that the suggestion is very clear; but, 
to the best of my knowledge, they are mostly university 
faculty, staff or teaching or combinations of that in re­
search, or some of them work for the water lab, U. S. facil­
ities which are located adjacent to it.

Q. At my request, did you compile comparative data of 
Clarke County and the University Heights community? A. 
Yes, I have some, Mr. Leverett, which came through Mr. 
David Ribbage who was unable to be here, but which is 
recorded and which you have had access to labeled Neigh­
borhood Analysis and which was produced by the Athens, 
Clarke County Planning Commission, and is available in 
the Court House for about $4.00.

Q. I hand you Movant’s Exhibit 10 and ask you if you 
can identify that as the particular document that you were 
referring to? A. This is the document to which I made 
reference, yes.

Q. What is this data that you compiled at my request?
Mr. Epting: Excuse me just a minute, Mr. Leverett. I 

think he is going into hearsay as to somebody else’s cal­
culations other than his own. It seems to me that it is 
hearsay evidence.



Mr. Leverett: Mr. President and members of the 
Board, it is my position with respect to this type of data 
which admittedly is hearsay, but as this is not a judicial 
proceeding, and that consequently the witness is testifying 
to the source of his information and the basis of his in­
formation, which is a publication of Clarke County, and 
that compilation is available, we submit that this data
[261] is not very long and should be admissible.

Mr. Epting: Let me ask in the interest of time, is that 
what this Plaintiff’s Exhibit 5 is, is that what you are 
having him testify about! A. I think probably what he 
has is a synopsis of all, based on everything, and not just 
neighborhood 2 which is the East Athens area which 
Plaintiff’s Exhibit 5 refers to.

Dr. Browne: Any further objections.

Mr. Epting: No, since we don’t have the strict rules 
e evidence here.

Dr. Browne: I think we will permit it. Go ahead.

Mr. Leverett: Answer very briefly if you will. A. I 
think in all fairness we should remark that this is not 
hearsay. I have briefed through this and it shows blighted 
areas, trash debris and adequate lots, unpaved streets, 
major hazardous intersections, etc. The educational level 
that was given to me by Mr. Bibbage is that there are 
55% school dropouts in East Athens, and that the low 
educational level as indicated by fifteen percent of the 
population having fifth grade or less—30% having ninth 
grade or less and 12% having less than a high school 
education.

Q. What are the figures for the University Heights 
area! A. There are only four who have less than a high 
school education. We don’t have any drop out figures. 
None of our children are old enough to be dropping out.

—  1 4 2  —



1 4 3  —

Q. What is the average educational level in University 
Heights! A. Well, if you picked a figure, the most fre­
quent figure is that you would have to take the college 
graduate and get eighty four. If you take all of these 
together, as I  am not [262] trying to do, and weight them 
somehow, you would have to note the fact that there are 
51 people with doctoral degrees and 12 more receiving 
them; so, it would be considerably higher.

Q. Any other data that you have there! A. None that 
I think pertinent.

Q. Do you pay taxes, Dr. Hobbs! A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you own a home there! A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you own a car! A. Yes.
Q. Do most of the people in the University Heights 

community own their homes! A. Pretty nearly all.
Q. What about automobiles, do they have automobiles! 

A. Yes.
Q. What elementary school was attended by the ele­

mentary school children in the University Heights com­
munity during the 1968-69 school year! A. Barnett Shoals.

Q. How far is the University Heights community from 
the Barnett Shoals school! A. It is approximately two 
miles, around 2.1 or 2.2.

Q. Were your children bussed last year! A. Yes, they 
were.

Q. Assuming that your child attends East Athens ele­
mentary school, how far is this from the University 
Heights community! A. Mr. Leverett, it depends on which 
of the three routes that you take. The shortest and the 
most dangerous route would be out College Station to 
East Campus Drive to the main portion of town. That 
would be 4.2 miles. If you [263] went through College 
Station Road, Research Road, Barnett Shoals Road, Oco­
nee, etc., it involved entering Highway 78 which is ex­



—  1 4 4  —

tremely heavily traveled and there is a curve at the bot­
tom of the hill. The distance that way is 5.6 miles.

Q. Is that the Lexington Highway? A. That is what is 
referred to as the Lexington Hwy. The other road which 
is perhaps the safest without a doubt is out College Sta­
tion to the intersection of Barnett Shoals and you come 
to Gaines School Road, then, Highway 78 which is 5.1 
miles and passes right by Gaines school.

Q. How many miles is that? A. 5.1.
Q. Are there other public elementary schools in your 

area closer to University Heights community than is this 
East Athens? A. Yes.

Q. What are they? A. It would be Gaines and Barnett 
Shoals to which reference has already been made, and 
Barrow which is 2.8 miles.

Q. What about Gaines? A. Gaines is 2.2 miles.
Q. All right, sir. Would you locate these schools on this 

map and draw another circle around them and write or 
identify them as being Gaines, Barrow and Barnett Shoals. 
This is Movant’s Exhibit 4. A. Unless I overlooked it, 
Barnett Shoals is not shown on this map.

Q. Can you identify it or locate it without------  A. It is
on this side of Barnett Shoals.
[264] Q. On which side of Barnett Shoals—the East or 
West side? A. It is on the West side.

Q. It would be over here somewhere. A. Yes.
Q. Are there any natural barriers or hazards lie be­

tween University Heights community and any one of 
these three schools—Barrow, Gaines and Barnett Shoals? 
A. None that I would identify as barriers.

Q. What about hazards? A. There is a hazardous inter­
section at the College Station and East Campus Road.

Q. Are these schools accessible to the University Heights 
community? A. Yes.



1 4 5  —

Q. What about are there any barriers or hazards be­
tween the University Heights community and the East 
Athens elementary school? A. If you consider riding over 
expanses of land, then the answer is yes. If you consider 
dangerous highways, a business district, a railroad under 
which there is an extremely narrow underpass which the 
bus probably cannot negotiate, and this is one of the 
most direct routes to the school. Yes, there are a number 
of barriers, natural barriers.

Q. How does the East Athens neighborhood compare 
with the University Heights community as far as com­
plexion, the type of structures, the age of the buildings? 
A. I think the study which refers to the lighting is self 
explanatory, and I think that the East Athens area is an 
older area. The people have pride in their homes there as 
we do in University Heights. It just so happens that we 
[265] are quite different.

Q. Do you feel that your children or the children of 
any of the people in University Heights would have very 
much in common with the children in the East Athens 
school zone? A. It is difficult to find it, Mr. Leverett. 
Contrary to Dr. Booth’s testimony, it seems to me that you 
have to look at the distribution, and you have to acknowl­
edge what I am told by two consultants in the School of 
Education that the teaching material is set toward the 
middle, and there is no middle. As a matter of fact, one 
of our greatest concerns now that we know that we are 
scheduled to attend there is that we are informed that 
there is a negro P. T. A., and that we are not eligible 
for membership. It looks as if that too is going to be 
split down the middle.

Q. Where will the other white pupils in the East Athens 
school other than the University Heights community, 
where will they come from? A. It is my understanding 
that they are within walking distance of their neighbor­
hood school.



—  146 —

Q. What is the condition of the East Athens elementary 
school? A. It is better now than it was a week or ten 
days ago. The building, I think, was accurately described 
by Mr. Ellard who said that he was glad he had not 
visited the East Athens school until after they devised 
this plan, for if he had seen the conditions of the school, 
he would never have voted this plan, I mean proposed 
this plan. It is an older section which was built about 
eighteen years ago and it is in terrible shape, but at the 
present time is being renovated. The newer part of the 
school is in much better shape. It [266] seems that the 
opinion is that the white children make the same sort of 
sacrifice that the negroes have made. The new wing, I 
have to admit, is in good condition. There is painting 
going on. The boards, however, are marked to the point 
of not being able to use. Some of the boards have been 
used for thumb tacking material to them and are com­
pletely unusable. I don’t know what sort of condition 
the plumbing was in, but last Friday when I visited there 
these were the conditions. I am told that the school is 
without a dishwasher, for example, which presents cer­
tain health problems to the black as well as to the white 
kids. This obviously has been going on for some time 
using cracked dishes and so on in the cafeteria.

Q. How does it compare with the Gaines, the Barrow 
and the Barnett Shoals schools? A. I cannot speak for 
Gaines except for a short visit that I made there when 
we had the election of sending our children to the school 
we choose. I can’t speak about Barrow, but the Barnett 
Shoals school is obviously one of the best physical plants 
here in Clarke County, or I expect anywhere in the South­
east and perhaps in the nation.

Q. Is it air conditioned? A. It is air conditioned and 
carpeted.

Q. What about the East Athens school? A. It is not 
air conditioned; it has a tile floor. The heating is also a



1 4 7  —

concern because there are individual gas heaters in the 
rooms.

Q. Do you object to your children being assigned under 
this plan to the East Athens elementary school? A. Yes, 
under this plan I wholeheartedly object, for two or three 
reasons which I have tried to write out. Number [267] 
one the proposal offers no equitable or durable solution to 
school desegregation, which I favor. I would like to see 
this school integrated on a permanent basis, on a fair basis, 
one in which the whole community shares, one in which 
people do not have to move out of their area and thereby 
defeat the plan that the Board has recommended. The 
plan, I think, is really no plan at all. It is a hasty re­
vision of the neighborhood plan drawn up in one week by 
two people assisted by two other Board members. The 
next objection that I would state is to raise the question 
about whether this plan can or will facilitate the educa­
tion of either of the two children. I think there is some­
thing more to be asked than just simply putting black 
and white together in the same building. My children 
have gone to school with negroes; they have had negro 
teachers, including the time that we have been here in 
Clarke County. But, I am honestly concerned whether 
any of the children are going to get educated with these 
kinds of maximum differences . . . Unless we have tre­
mendous input of sources which so far we do not have, 
and I have not been able to get a commitment from the 
school board.

Q. Do you think that your children will be able to 
identify with the other pupils in the East Athens school? 
A. I suspect initially that both black and white kids are 
going to have some difficulty. I have faith in my kids 
that they will make it. I don’t anticipate any easy ad­
justment, and don’t think anyone who is reasonable and 
gives any thought to it would.

Q. What about the facility to communicate with each 
other? A. I think this is going to be extremely proble­



—  1 4 8  —

matic, [268] and hinge around what can be done by the 
teachers, and I have done some research on some of this. 
This is the National Education Association study for 1964, 
and I would like to quote from it. I apologize for it being 
lengthy, but I think this is an important issue: “ The 
children often affected negatively where the child remains 
a stranger and a non-participant. As a result some chil­
dren are being apathetic, seeming to suffer from intel­
lectual anemia. Others are defiant, but unsure, and still 
others are riddled by fears. Studies reputedly show the 
slower students to be less confident and more fearful.” 
It seems to me the importance of this is that the slow 
learner fared better in emotional and social terms when 
placed in homogeneous sections than they did when they 
were placed in matched sections of hetergeneous classes. 
“ In a study where neither the teacher nor the students 
compared the slow with the average and with the superior 
students which we know the students will do whether the 
teacher wishes it or not, there was an increase in teacher 
acceptance, in students’ acceptance and in self accept­
ance.”  Although the standardized achievement tests do 
have problems, as Dr. Booth has indicated, and there is 
no three differences between these hetergeneous and homo­
geneous groupings, the slow readers in the homogeneous 
remedial sections, nearly all of them engaged in discus­
sions, and talked well and frequently, even five and six 
times a period on the average. This was not true with 
equally retarded students in the regular classes. In this 
situation they spoke rarely, less than one half the time. 
I think most of you here agree that this is an important 
aspect of learning. “ In an interview one of the students 
explained: ‘ I sit next to someone who [269] talks smart. 
I can’t talk smart, so I don’t talk.’ Slow students are 
easily overwhelmed by the children who are above them.” 
I seriously, while I agree with Dr. Booth that there is 
quite a wide range of ability in any group, I think we 
cannot ignore that there is a very probable bimotive dis­



1 4 9  —

tribution with one group of students who are already 
there, probably following, I didn’t hear the standard 
deviation which she used, but probably standing at least 
one standard deviation below this. The children in Uni­
versity Heights, although we were not permitted to look 
at this type of information, are probably one standard 
deviation above. I do not see any way to refute this bi­
motive distribution.

Q. Anything else you wish to add Dr. Hobbs? A. I 
tend to agree with a lot of people that leaving children, 
very young children in particular; in their own neighbor­
hood schools would perhaps make it easier for them to 
make an adaptation at the beginning of school. My major 
concern, and I think the one that I have heard voiced 
most frequently is that we have some sort of equitable 
plan of desegregation. We don’t feel that the compromise 
plan is such a plan.

Cross-Examination, by Mr. Epting

Q. Dr. Hobbs, are you opposed to integration? A. No. 
I favor it.

Q. Do you know anyway to integrate the schools other 
than to put white children and negro children in the same 
school? A. I think that is self explanatory.

Q. Did you consider the neighborhood plan that was 
[270] first approved by this Board and submitted to 
the Department of Health, Education and Welfare? A. 
You mean did I consider it or did I know about it?

Q. Did you consider it? A. I considered that it was 
going to be rejected by H. E. W.

Q. Did you have any objections to that plan? A. I am 
in favor of complying with the law, and didn’t feel that 
did so; therefore, I took no action. It seemed to me that 
H. E. W. would take care of it, and they did.



1 5 0  —

Q. The neighborhood plan would have left your children 
where you want them to be, is that right! A. No. I am 
not making a pitch, Mr. Epting, that my children should 
be in any particular school. I am not arguing that they 
go back necessarily to Barnett Shoals. I am arguing in 
favor of a plan of desegregation in which the whole com­
munity shares. This is not one.

Q. Do you have such a plan! A. I think in view of the 
testimony tonight which indicated if you look at the dis­
tribution of our school population as prepared by the 
School Board that there are 6,000 elementary students— 
2,000 of whom are negro—4,000 of whom are white, or on a 
Ys-% distribution. The compromise plan doesn’t come close 
to that. I think the other plan does come to that. I per­
sonally favor a middle school plan, and I think it is 
educationally sound, and I think there are educators who 
have testified to that fact.

Q. Now your children and all the children in University 
Heights have to be transported somewhere! A. That is 
correct.

Q. And, if they were transported to either Barnett 
Shoals [271] or Gaines, then there would be less room 
for the integration of those schools on an operable ratio 
basis? A. I cannot conclude that from the testimony that 
I have heard from the school board officials who can’t tell 
me where the lines are, and what would be the objection 
to drawing them in another direction.

Q. You know under the present plan Gaines school is 
filled to capacity with students that live within a mile 
and a half of that school? A. This was announced, Mr. 
Epting, with a considerably different percentage of negro 
and white distribution like 21/79.

Q. If you have an equal ratio of white and colored stu­
dents in all of the schools, you have that same different 
socio-economic level of students in all of the schools in­



—  1 5 1

stead of just some of them. A. That is correct, and I would 
like it that way. I would like for everybody to share in 
the problem of desegregating the schools.

Q. You think desegregation is a problem. A. Apparently 
it has been for the school board for the last fourteen 
years or so.

Q. Do you think the fact that the schools are being 
desegregated lowers the standards of education! A. Proba­
bly if it is done this way.

Q. How can it be done and accomplish the same thing! 
A. I think by distributing it around. I think if we had 
more children from some other areas, we wouldn’t have 
this tremendous gap in the two distributions of children 
in East Athens.
[272] Q. You don’t subscribe to the philosophy now that 
it is educationally advantageous for children to be associ­
ated with children of different socio-economic levels! A. 
It’s not a matter of whether I subscribe to it. It is a 
matter of whether our children are going to work out this 
way.

Q. Do you think that is good for them? A. What!

Q. To be associated with children of different socio­
economic levels? A. I think that is inevitable.

Q. Do you think it is good for your children? A. What 
do you mean by good for them? If it lowers their educa­
tional standards, no, it isn’t good for them, them or the 
black students either.

Q. Have you had an occasion to study the comparative 
cost and comparative problems with the plan that you 
say that you are in favor of? A. I don’t believe I com­
mitted myself to a plan.

Q. I thought you said that you favored the plan of— 
the middle school plan. A. That’s right.



—  1 5 2  —

Q. Do you know anything about the cost of that! A. I 
am not sure you have a middle school plan.

Q. You don’t think any such plan has been considered 
by this Board? A. I believe Mr. Fleming testified that 
Plan B would come the closest to it, and hasn’t been 
considered.

Q. Are you considering the question of school integra­
tion from the standpoint of the best interests of the whole 
county, or to your children. A. I believe for the whole 
county. We have been called [273] all sorts of things in 
consequence of taking this action. This is what we have 
to live with, but I think if you knew the people and could 
talk with the people, they are concerned with all the chil­
dren in Clarke Comity. The thing that makes it difficult 
for us to understand is why we have delayed so long, pro­
crastinated so long, and then given as an answer for not 
trying the middle school plan on the 30th of July that it 
is too late.

Q. But, you raised no objection to the neighborhood 
plan? A. To whom?

Q. To the Board of Education? A. I understood that 
Mr. Wood was not very receptive.

Q. Did you attend any Board meetings and make any 
objections? A. No, I believe there were some other people 
from our community who did that.

Q. Do you think that plan was good for the 75 white 
children who would be in East Athens school with 407 
negroes? A. I don’t think that plan was sound. I don’t 
think it was legal, and apparently H. E. W. agreed.

Q. You didn’t raise any objections? A. As I said I 
thought there was no need to. H. E. W. would refuse it.

Q. Isn’t it a fair statement that you objected only when 
your children were involved? A. No, I think that would 
be leading the situation. I think everyone of us, including 
I suspect you or any of us, respond when things touch us



—  1 5 3

personally. I think other segments of the community 
have responded when they got touched personally, and it 
appears to me to be the ones that scream loudest at any 
particular time.
[274] Q. Do you know of any plan that can be devised 
that won’t adversely effect somebody? A. No.

Redirect Examination, by Mr. Leverett

Q. Dr. Hobbs, do all of the movants who live in the 
University Heights community who are sponsoring or par­
ticipating in this proceeding, do all of them share your 
views with respect to this neighborhood plan, or do some 
of them favor the neighborhood plan? A. There is quite 
a variation in positions. Some favor the neighborhood 
plan, and worked for it. There were people who circulated 
petitions asking that they be signed. There were others 
who favored Plan B.

Q. If Plan B were used, wouldn’t the same socio-eco­
nomic composition exist in the school that your children 
would have attended under that plan as will exist in the 
East Athens elementary under the compromise plan? A. 
I didn’t examine it, but I can’t see how it would because 
then children from the entire school district would be 
sharing in it.

DR. BOOTH,
being recalled, testified as follows:

Redirect Examination, by Mr. Leverett

Q. Dr. Booth, a few minutes ago did you give Mr. 
Epting a note to the effect that the mean I. Q. altogether 
at Barnett Shoals was 108, and 90.5 at East Athens? A. 
I did.

Q. Where did you get those figures? [275] A. I  got 
it from third grade records in my office.



—  1 5 4

Q. Those figures are correct? A. Those figures are cor­
rect.

Q. That would be a difference of 18.5 I. Q. points? A. 
If I had given a guess which I said had no validity what­
soever except a guess, I would go further and say that 
there are three schools with a higher mean I. Q. than 
Barnett Shoals, and there are some, I don’t remember, 
that are lower.

MRS. EDDIE CROSS,
being first duly sworn, testified as follows:

Direct Examination, by Mr. Leverett
Q. Your name is Mrs. Eddie Cross? A. Yes, sir, that 

is right.
Q. For this record, you are a member of the Negro 

race? A. Yes, sir, I am.
Q. And, Mrs. Otis Sims who testified earlier, she also 

is a member of the negro race? A. That is right.
Q. Where do you live, Mrs. Cross? A. I live at 206 

Rock Springs Homes.
Q. How many children do you have that will attend 

elementary school? A. Two.
Q. What are their names? A. I have got one Elsie 

Jean Cross who is twelve and Crawford Cross who is six.
Q. What school will they attend this coming year under 

this plan? A. The Barrow street.
Q. How far is Barrow Street school from where you 

live? A. I would say about a mile and a half.
[276] Q. Do you know Emma Young? A. Yes, sir, I 
do.

Q. Is she also a member of the negro race? A. Yes,
sir.



—  1 5 5  —

Q. Does she have a school child! A. Yes, sir, one who 
is six.

Q. What is his or her name! A. I don’t remember.
Q. Is it a girl or boy! A. A boy.
Q. What grade will that child be in! A. The first 

grade.
Q. And, she lives in the same place that you do, the 

same homes! A. The same homes, yes, sir.
Q. Will her child go to Barrow also! A. Yes.
Q. Where did your child go last year! A. The one 

that was in the sixth grade, she went to West Broad.
Q. Where did all of the elementary pupils that lived in 

the Rock Spring Homes, what school did they go to last 
year! A. They all went to West Broad.

Q. Do you object to your child being taken out of 
the West Broad and sent to Barrow school this coming 
year! A. Yes, sir, I believe I am because one is small, 
and it is a long way for him to walk. Where they are 
going to walk is dangerous, and then I have to work 
and don’t have no transportation to get them there.

[277] Cross-Examination, by Mr. Epting

Q. Where do you want your children to go to school! 
A. Well, this small child of mine I would like for him to 
go to West Broad because he is so small and it is so far 
for him to go.

Q. Rock Springs Homes is a public housing building, 
isn’t it! A. Yes, sir.

Q. And, if all of the children in the vicinity of West 
Broad went to West Broad, they would be practically all 
colored, wouldn’t they! A. Yes, sir, I believe it would.

Q. Is Barrow a better school than West Broad! A. 
That I don’t know.



— 1 5 6  —

Mr. Leverett: Mr. President, we offer to tender in evi­
dence Plaintiff’s Exhibits, I might say that these are 
marked Plaintiff’s Exhibits, but technically they will be 
Movant’s Exhibits 1 which is the Board meeting of July 
16th, Plaintiff’s Exhibit 2, a certified copy of the Board 
minutes of July 21st, Plaintiff’s Exhibit 3, the Board 
minutes of July 30th, Plaintiff’s Exhibit 4 which is the 
map of Athens, Clarke County, Georgia, are there any 
objections to those documents submitted?

Dr. Browne: They are all right, sir.
Mr. Leverett: We tender in evidence Movant’s Exhibit 

5 which is, or better still I will tender in evidence Mov­
ant’s Exhibit 10, which is a document that has been 
identified as a publication of the Athens, Clarke 
County Planning Commission entitled Neighborhood 
Analysis. I am introducing this primarily for the purpose 
of getting pages 11-14 which is an analysis of the East 
Athens neighborhood.

Mr. Epting: Why not just use 5 which you have there 
[278] that shows that information?

Mr. Leverett: All right, sir. I am withdrawing 10. We 
tender in evidence Movant’s Exhibit 6 which is a docu­
ment of four pages entitled Plan B. Movant’s Exhibit 
7, a document entitled Evaluation of Transportation Costs 
Under Zoning Plan. We tender in evidence Plaintiff’s 
Exhibit 9 which is a map of the neighborhood school 
plan.

Mr. Epting: Let me say this, I have the neighborhood 
school plan and the statistical data attached to it that 
I am putting in, but if you want it in all right. Now, 
that is the neighborhood plan.

Mr. Leverett: The one that was adopted and rejected?

Mr. Epting: That is right. I have that and also have 
the feeder system attached to it.



—  1 5 7

Mr. Leverett: All right, in that connection, Mr. Ep- 
ting, I see something that appears to he a typographical 
error on the next to the last page of your statement, or 
the statement is made in the top paragraph the last sen­
tence “ A summary of the three plans above referred to is 
hereto attached as Exhibit B, with map and data pertain­
ing to the graphical— , is that geographic?

Mr. Epting: It should be geographic.
Mr. Leverett: Is that synonymous with the neighbor­

hood school plan?
Mr. Epting: The geographical plan is the one that has 

been finally approved and approved by H. E. W.
Mr. Leverett: Out of an abundance of caution, I would 

still like to tender Movant’s Exhibit 9 even though it 
may be a little repetitious. Movant’s Exhibit 8 which is 
a letter dated June 30, 1969 from Mr. Leon E. Panetta, 
Director of [279] 0. C. R., and I would hope that the 
Board could substitute a more legible copy than this 
one.

Dr. Browne: We will get you a better copy, Mr. 
Leverett.

Mr. Leverett: I believe the procedure would be to mail 
it to the Court Reporter. Mr. President, I have one or 
two questions that I would like to submit to the Presi­
dent, and if he can’t answer, I would appreciate any 
Board member answering who can, and that is who pro­
posed the excepting of the West Broad and the East 
Athens elementary schools from the 20/40 ratio?

Dr. Browne: The way this came about, Mr. Leverett, 
were these suggestions for our criteria came out at our 
meeting of a committee as a whole at which there was 
no voting or any official action taken—just a general 
discussion. It was out of this discussion that these ratios 
developed, and since several people are involved in talk­



—  1 5 8

ing about these, I don’t recall personally just who made 
this specific suggestion. It seems to me that it was more 
than one. It may not have been. Mr. Wilbur Jones was 
one, but whether it was someone else I don’t recall at 
this time. It just came out of our general discussion at 
the meeting.

Mr. Leverett: Those documents being in, we rest.

Dr. Browne: Thank you, Mr. Leverett. Mr. Epting.
Mr. Epting: I would like to ask Dr. Browne or whoever 

could answer to explain why it was thought necessary to 
except West Broad and East Athens from the 20 mini­
mum 40 maximum negro pupils ratio?

Dr. Browne: I can say about that, Mr. Epting, only 
that and this is still a personal opinion of mine that I 
thought about it at the time. Because of the fact that 
these two schools were located in areas, are located in 
areas where there [280] is a high concentration of negro 
pupils. To reduce the number to put it within the 40/20 
would require a significant amount of bussing out of these 
two areas, and it would cause a significant amount of 
bussing into these two areas to make that much adjust­
ment. One of the considerations we had was to keep 
the bussing to a minimum that we could do practically. 
As I recall, this was the primary consideration for treat­
ing those two schools in that manner.

Mr. Leverett: Mr. President, I would ask, wasn’t one 
reason the fact that Mr. Wilbur Jones and perhaps other 
Board members felt that we ought to have a school where 
they were substantially almost 50% negroes in the stu­
dent population.

Mr. Leverett: Mr. Jones did make that statement, did 
you not?

Mr. Jones: Yes, I made that statement. In fact, I want 
the schools to be predominantly negro. I have listened



—  1 5 9  —

here tonight and what we are trying to do is to delay as 
much as we can. We did not pass the Civil Rights Act. 
We just must comply with it. I voted to have same ma­
jority negro schools, and I don’t know all about this 
socio—etc.—that all meant nothing to me because I knew 
that some of our children will leave their mark. I thought 
if it was fair to put 30% negro in a white school, it was 
certainly all right to put 40% white in a negro school. 
After all, over all of these years, some of those children 
who you are bringing up their I. Q.s and all are going to 
make higher marks and make better students than your 
university professors who have a Ph. D. As I listened 
tonight, it seems some want to have a school just for 
those with a Ph. D. Yes, the negro doesn’t want to lose 
his identity, and I was for it and I was for it being just 
as many negroes in West Broad and East Athens as I 
possibly could get in there. I think these ladies that you 
brought here exemplify why.

Mr. Epting: Mr. President, the rules in regards to these 
matters state that the Board may read into the record a
[281] statement of its position in regard to the matter; 
therefore, I have a statement which I assume, under the 
rule, rather than just file, I will have to read in. Some 
of the Board members, of course, haven’t heard it, and 
I think they are entitled to.

Mr. Leverett: Mr. Epting, I have no objection to its 
being submitted and filed and being considered as having 
been read. Now, if you want to publicize it, I have no 
objection.

Mr. Epting: I think maybe we will ask, Mr. President, 
if any Board member wants it read so they will know 
what we are filing.

Dr. Browne: What is the pleasure of the Board on this 
matter—do you want Mr. Epting to read this presentation



1 6 0  —

or stipulation, or are you willing to have it submitted as 
evidence ?

Board Members: We haven’t heard it and would like 
to have it read.

Dr. Browne: I think the decision of the Board is that 
you read it. That would be my own personal sentiment. 
Go ahead and read it.

See: Statement for Clarke County Board of Education 
in Response to Motion of Paul L. Wood et al. (Attached), 
Pages 108-114.

[282] Statement for Clarke County Board of 
Education in Response to Motion 

of Paul L. Wood et al.

Prior to the 1968-1969 school year Clarke County Board 
of Education had adopted policies providing for freedom 
of choice plans as a means of complying with the desegre­
gation requirements of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and 
such plans had been accepted by the United States De­
partment of Health, Education and Welfare.

In early 1968, the Board of Education was advised that 
it would be required to submit a plan to the Department 
of Health, Education and Welfare under the provisions 
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and such a plan was sub­
mitted and approved and put into operation which pro­
vided that students in outlying areas of the county would 
attend schools under a zone plan, while those in the inner- 
city area would attend schools under a freedom of choice 
plan. This plan, for elementary schools, was accepted by 
the Department of Health, Education and Welfare for the 
school year 1968-1969.

In October, 1968, the Board of Education was advised 
that a different plan would be required for the school



— 161 —

year beginning in September, 1969, and that it would be 
necessary for the Board of Education to adopt a plan 
which would involve greater desegregation of students 
and faculty. At the meeting of the Board on October 10, 
1968, a committee of three members of the Board was 
appointed for the purpose of studying data and preparing 
and submitting to the Board a desegregation plan which 
would meet the requirements of the Department of Health, 
Education and Welfare, and which would enable Clarke 
County School District to operate its schools in a feasible 
and economical manner.
[283] This committee, composed of Board members E. B. 
Cook as Chairman, Mrs. Joanna Parsons and Wilbur 
Jones, was furnished with material compiled by the ad­
ministrative personnel, consisting of maps showing four 
proposals for districting the area which theretofore had 
operated as freedom of choice areas and statements tabu­
lating anticipated assignment of students in those areas.

The committee studied those four approaches, but de­
cided that in view of the questions presented these plans 
should be discussed at a meeting of the Board. The Board 
failed to adopt any one of the plans and asked for further 
study.

Subsequent meetings of the committees were held, but 
in November the committee reported that it did not have 
a plan for recommendation. The committee was instructed 
to continue its efforts and a request was made to the De­
partment of Health, Education and Welfare to grant an 
extension to January 1, 1969, which extension was granted.

It was decided that a complete new survey of the county 
school population was necessary, and this study was made 
by the administrative staff, with assistance of members 
of the Athens League of Women Voters, and a wall size 
map was constructed in the board room showing the dis­
tribution of students by number, race and residence.



1 6 2  —

As no plan could be devised by January 1, the Board 
of Education was notified by the Department of Health, 
Education and Welfare that it was in noncompliance, and, 
therefore, Clarke County School District became ineligible 
for new Federal funding* as of that date.

In the meantime, a group of approximately one hun­
dred of the teaching and the administrative staff from all 
schools in Clarke County who had been studying the
[284] problem of desegregation presented plans or ideas 
for accomplishing acceptable desegregation.

Also, the original staff members who submitted the first 
data during October continued to work, using current 
survey materials to devise new districting lines, maintain­
ing the traditional neighborhood school concept and sub­
mitted a plan which was labeled “ Plan Seven”  of the 
“ Neighborhood Plan” .

The Citizens and Advisory Committee, composed of ap­
proximately thirty-five citizens, appointed a committee of 
three to make recommendations.

The principals of the Clarke County School District 
submitted a letter stating criteria which they felt should 
prevail in any plan.

The aid of the School Desegregation Education Center 
of the University of Georgia was solicited and they as­
sisted in exploring all possibilities toward devising a 
desegregation plan.

Various plans were submitted to and considered by the 
Board of Education Committee, and the suggestions of 
various groups, including those mentioned above, were 
studied and maps of numerous plans were prepared and 
data compiled in regard to many of such plans.

In the meantime the Department of Health, Education 
and Welfare served a notice of an opportunity for hear­



—  1 6 3  —

ing and request for admissions on the Board, and re­
sponses were made thereto within the time required.

On April 16, 1969, the Board Committee reviewed sum­
maries of actions taken to date and undertook to discuss 
the merits of all approaches to a satisfactory plan, con­
sidering them from the standpoints of the most practical
[285] use of physical facilities, the establishment of zones 
in order to enable the maximum number of children to 
be able to walk to school, to be economical with respect 
to cost of transportation and use of facilities, to be feasi­
ble and acceptable to as much of the community as pos­
sible, and to be acceptable to the Department of Health, 
Education and Welfare.

It was felt that the “ Neighborhood Plan’ ’, with modi­
fications in order to satisfy the requirements to eliminate 
dual school systems as nearly as possible was the most 
practical; and since the proposed “ Neighborhood Plan”  
showed extreme circumstances in regard to the West 
Broad Street zone and in the East Athens zone, the ad­
ministrative staff was asked to re-examine the district 
lines and make adjustments if possible. New maps were 
prepared and a plan called the “ Neighborhood Plan”  
was submitted reflecting changes which had been suggested 
from time to time. A copy of the map and supporting 
data is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

On April 21, the “ Neighborhood Plan”  was considered 
to be the best that could be devised, in view of the com­
plicated racial distribution in Clarke County and other 
factors, and it was thought advisable to submit this plan 
to officials in the Department of Health, Education and 
Welfare for review before submitting same to the Board 
for Board action. This was done and tentative approval 
was given by the Department of Health, Education and 
Welfare Office in Atlanta, supposedly with approval from 
the Washington office, and on April 24, 1969, the Com­



—  164 —

mittee recommended the adoption of this plan and sub­
mission of same to the Department of Health, Education 
and Welfare, and after considerable discussion such plan 
was adopted by a vote of five to four in the meeting of the 
entire Board of Education, one member being absent.

[286] This plan was formally submitted to the officials 
of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare in 
Washington, D. C., on May 1, 1969, and the conference in 
regard thereto continued into May 2, 1969, but no ap­
proval or disapproval was given as of that time. The 
hearing on non-compliance, previously scheduled for May 
5, was postponed by agreement, and the plan was left 
with the Department of Health, Education and Welfare 
for further consideration.

By letter dated June 30, 1969, Clarke County Board 
of Education received formal notice from the Civil Bights 
Division of HEW that the plan submitted was not con­
sidered to be in compliance with the Civil Rights Act of 
1964. This letter suggested the adoption of a plan known 
as “ Plan B ” , which called for rearranging of the elemen­
tary school system whereby grades 1-4 would be assigned 
to ten of the elementary schools, and grades 5 and 6 
would be assigned to four of the elementary schools.

It was recognized by the Board of Education that the 
use of this plan would involve a substantial increase in 
the busing of students, and would require many students 
now residing near an elementary school to be transported 
to more distant schools where proper grade level could be 
obtained; and that a substantial rearrangement of class­
room equipment would be required, as well as reassign­
ment of teaching personnel. Also it called for use of an 
additional school, but would leave vacant space in a num­
ber of schools sufficient to accommodate over 700 students. 
It was considered that the working of such drastic changes 
during the few weeks remaining before the opening of



schools on September 2, would be extremely difficult, if 
not impossible.
[287] Therefore, on July 16, 1969, after considering the 
alternatives of (1) adopting “ Plan B ” , (2) adopting a 
substitute “ Geographic Zone Plan”  or (3) adhering to 
the “ Neighborhood Plan”  previously submitted; the Board 
first rejected the “ Plan B ”  proposal by a 6-4 vote, then 
rejected the “ Geographic Zone”  plan by a 7-3 vote, and 
approved a motion to proceed with a hearing before a 
hearing examiner with reference to the “ Neighborhood 
Plan” , by a 7-3 vote. A summary of the three plans above 
referred to is hereto attached as Exhibit B ; with map and 
data pertaining to the Geographical Zoning Plan attached 
as Exhibit C.

On July 17, 1969, HEW officials were notified of the 
desire that the hearing be set at the earliest possible 
moment.

On July 19, certain members indicated a desire that 
the Board reconsider the possibility of adopting a differ­
ent plan, and a meeting was held on July 21, at which 
the Board by a 6-5 vote, adopted a motion rescinding the 
action of July 16. However, a motion to adopt “ Plan B ”  
was discussed, and was tabled in order that two members 
of the Board, with the assistance of administrative per­
sonnel, might present an alternative plan which would 
preserve as much as possible the neighborhood school con­
cept, and also provide for more desegregation.

On July 30, the Board, by an 8-2 vote approved the 
plan, known as the “ Comprimise Zoning Plan” , and this 
plan was submitted to the Department of Health, Educa­
tion and Welfare on August 7, was approved by it on 
said date. Copies of maps and other data showing this 
plan are attached hereto as Exhibit D.

At all meetings of the Board involving any action per­
taining to adoption of any of the plans, the public had

— 165 —



— 1 6 6  —

[288] notice and all persons desiring to be heard were 
given the opportunity to state their positions.

The Clarke County Board of Education recognizes the 
fact that no plan for assignment of pupils to particular 
schools will be satisfactory to all persons in the com­
munity. In regard to pupils residing in the Univresity 
Heights area, it was recognized that they did not reside 
near enough to any school so that transportation would 
not be required for them, and it was felt that since they 
had to be transported anyway, it was fairer and more 
sensible that they be included in the East Athens School 
zone to which they are adjacent rather than to require 
the transporting of other children from areas in closer 
proximity to other schools for whom transportation would 
not otherwise be required.





168

PROPOSED FEEDER SVSTEfi 

1969-70

s n t a r /  Sc

-V J in tery ille  

-F o a ls "  D rive 

-N orth Athens

W

Lyons
S00

(63%-3’ c)

;ehesd

Gaines
-H arnett Shoals

■ Chase 

-A la s

V
J u n io r  High S ch oo ls  (7 -9 )

H ilsm an
1050

approxim ate r a c ia l  com p osition  
(66%-345)

V

Claries 
12 SO

'692-522)

S e n io r  High S ch ools  

"Freedom  o f  C hoice”



V /in te r v il le  
F cvslcz Driv^t 
N o rth  A th e n s

L yon s
360 (7  n ::d  0}

i

B u r n e y  H a r r is  
545 ( 9 - U )

1 6 9

F E E D E R  P L A N  
1970-71

E le m e n ta r y  S c h o o ls  ( i -  9.

B a r r o w  
E a st A th en s  
O c o n e e  
G a in e s  

| B a rn e tt  She:

'A/ h ite h s a a  
O g le th o r p e  
W e s t  B r o a d  
C h a se  
A lp s

J u n io r  H igh  S c h o o ls

H ils m a : 
7 5 0  <7

S eco n d a ry  See

C la r k e  
o7 0 (-7 and

i

N ew  H igh  S c h o o l  A th e n s  H igh
U>5 (9-15) 159= {9-15}

cL J L m -tf-3



1 7 0  —

S um m ary  o f  P lane

.\-o : y .b o rr .o c  a c-'iz.r. (as p re v io u s ly  adopted  by B oa rd  o f  E d u cation )

* ‘ *iJ *N-a-g --b or.'.coo  t-Ism reta in s ‘-no p re s e n t  c r  3n:vi national s tru c tu re  (g ra d e s  1 - 6) 
*— "  U/O-.cge A\Aonuc n l c iu c o -o - y  t c . i c o .  _ rcm  u se . T he o th er  th irteen
e lem en ta ry  s c n e o ls  had p er  cen tav o  0 o>f w hits and N e g ro  p u p ils  as show n b e low :

w N •V/ N
A lps oS% 32% N orth  A  Brens 37% 43%
B arns it Shoals 90% 10 % ccr.ee 59% 41%
B a rrow 92% 8%’ O g le th orp e 75% 25%
C hase 02% 18% W e s : B roa d 39% 61%
E ast Athens 16% 04% W hitehead 97% 3 Vo
B ow ler  D rive 63% 37% W in ter v illa 69% b 1 'J
G aines 93% V%

P lan " 3 "

P lan " 3 "  c a lls  fo r  a ch a n g e  in  o rg a n isa tio n a . 0 -m a tu re  and fo r  using  a ll  fourteen  
e lem en ta ry  s c h o o ls . T en  o f  the s c h o o ls  a r c  d esig n a ted  as lo w e r  e lem en ta ry  
s c h o o ls  (g r a c e s  1 -4 ) and fou r  a s  u p p er  e le m e n ta r y  s c h o o ls  (g ra d e s  5 - 6 ) .  The 
s c h o c _3 and p e rce n ta g e s  c f  vm ite and N eg ro  pupil p opu la tion s un der th is plan 
w ou ld  be as fo l lo w s :

L ev ;o r  E le m e r ;:ary U p per E 1 e m  a ata ry
V/ N ~.y N

A lps 68% 3 b 7o Bar-.-ow 7 C 5 Ic %
' nr re  ;t £ ’- s d 62% 35% C ease 65% 35%
v-0i-Cg3 62% 33% E a st A thens 61% 3 7 o
B ow ler 63% 37% W hitehead 72% 23 7 j
C a in es 65% 35%
N orth  A thens 7 v A 2191
O conee 67% 33%
O glssh ovps 60% 32%
B e s t  s r o - a 63% 37%
fis t s  w i l l s 67% 35%

C -etyr- phi ca l Zoning Pit... (as m o d ifie d  fr o m  the N e ig h b orh ood  P lan)

The G eo g ra p h ica l Z on ing  P lan  re ta in s  the g ra d e s  1-6 o rg a n iz a t io n a l s tru ctu re  and 
o m its  E a st A thens E lem en ta ry  S ch oo l fr o m  the s c h o o ls  to  be used for elementary 
pu p ils . T he o th er  ( id )  s c h o o ls  a r e  u sed . T he extremes in percentages of white 
and N eg ro  p u p ils  un der th is p lan  a r e  the A lp s  and Whitehead percentages of 70% 
whits to 30% Nagt-o sr.d the C o lle g e  A v ca u e  p e rc e n ta g e s  of 64% white to 36% Negro. 
-■-11 of She e th er  s c h o o ls  fall w ithin  th ese  lim its.

S/Jjj- £





—  1 7 2  —

Estimated Enrollments

School White Negro Total Per Cen:

Alps 452 19s 650 70/30
Barnett Shoals 595 193 593 67/33
Barrow ' 318 154 472 67/33
Chase 263 1.42 405 65/35
College 217 122 339 64 /  3 6
Fowler 227 115 242 66/34
C air.es 281 134 415 6S/32

North Atherjs 304 162 466 65/35
Ocor.es 236 123 359 66/34

Oglethorpe 398 209 607 66/34
West Broad 262 193 555 65/55

Whitehead 409 173 582 70/30

Winterville 22S 112 340 67/33

Totals 4,090 2, 035 6. 125



—  1 7 3  —

PROPOSED FEEDER SYSTEM 

1969-1970

Elementary Schools ( l«6 j

Y/intCi viile -Barrow _ Y/v. >■ •> ĵ e ̂  d

Fov/ier Drive
i
- Oglctnoroe

North Athens -Oconee

-Games

l»  ̂ „  ,

j

r  V,

Junior H’> h  Schools ,'7-9)

j

Lyons Hilsnaan Clarke
540 1024 1315

Senior High Schools 
‘ ‘Freedom of Choice '-

£ J u U C ~ 3





1 7 5



— 1 7 6 —

COMPROMISE ZON1X3 PL,-',!'!

.-■o.isctsd E.-.-o! imont Force r.tcr.o
\e c ro  • t ii t o  Toro! C??fjoC i Esctra Spaces Kzc.ro .,'1::

G rades 1 - 6 ;
A lp ;  Rose 467 622 650 32 26 74
S a .-no tr S h o e !; '.00 573 533 540 7 30 70
D s v ic  C . 8 a r  rev; ; o ; 339 490 3 10 20 31 69
Choso S t r o o t 18-V 295 479 540 61 33 62
Co l iO '-g Avonco :: 201 313 360 42 3 7 63
H ost A then s r .. 9 309 35! 570 19 44 55
re*.;! o r  D r iv e i '.3 241 354 360 6 32 63
G o ! re s 00 r e ' 0 ?3 350 14 21 70
so.-;-,-. A t iW iS 157 233 395 4 ss 85 40 60
O r !s rh o rp o 155 373 923 540 12 29 71
'..so t  3 rood 2 9Q 232 -• 5 2- 300 143 49 51
’..a ito h o a d  RosJ 54-7 422 339 54 G (25) 26 74
V .O n to rv i! !o ~i ■ 0 214 027 770 __ 3 35 55

T o r e ! ; t o  03 4000 6000 5470 920 33 57

o . w. to  » o r . o r s o t 577 1296 2C 0 4 9- •; 60
G o v t ic  .-.iio.vor. 512 530 C 79 ssC 23 V 4 6-1
-V o ss  J u s ‘. o r __ 370 s /2 Go 23 — it.

’t v : ■' -5 1727 - ' J 3 j-_ i _ _

G r^ rs .o v o .o r _ :. 5727 £.740
• i-

--

cy $



1 7 7  —

[299] Mr. Epting: We will file that statement unless there 
is some objection to it.

Mr. Bennett: May I raise just one question. I noticed 
you had the vote count on all of the votes except the one 
that was taken to go back to H. E. W. in favor of the 
neighborhood plan.

Dr. Browne: Maybe you just failed to read it, Mr. Ep­
ting. As I recall it, it is in there. The vote was 7-3.

Mr. Epting: I think you are right. You rejected the geo­
graphic zone by a 7-3 vote and approved the motion to 
proceed with the hearing before the hearing examiner 
with reference to the neighborhood plan. We can add in 
there if it is agreeable by a 7-3 vote. Any other questions!

Mr. Leverett: I would like to have a few remarks as 
a concluding argument.

Dr. Browne: Is that satisfactory with you, Mr. Epting!

Mr. Epting: Yes, sir, if he wants to make an argument, 
I guess so. Do you want the argument in the record!

Mr. Leverett: I don’t think it is necessary.

c
Dr. Browne: Mr. Epting, do you have any closing ar­

guments !
Mr. Epting: No, I was going to read as Mr. Leverett 

just said on his own dissertation the Mobile case, Mobile 
County, the Fifth Circuit, and that is the circuit we are 
in which it was required that the Jury make some de 
facto distinctions of zoning plans held in zoning plans 
which does not in operation bring about the statistical 
desegregation is just as defective as the freedom of choice. 
It also says in the Mobile case that in order to be more 
explicit it held that it was not enough for a Board merely



—  1 7 8

to draw zone lines on a non racial basis, but that in keep­
ing with the affirmative duty concept, the [300] Board 
must make a “ conscious effort in locating attendance 
zones to desegregate and eliminate past segregation.” 
This Board has adopted a plan which was submitted to 
the H. E. W. for approval, and it has been approved. 
Whether it is right or wrong, that is where we stand. 
That is all I have to say.

Dr. Browne: Thank you, Mr. Epting. Members of the 
Board of Education, you have heard the testimony pre­
sented by Mr. Leverett and information read by Mr. Ep­
ting that will be a part of this record, the arguments in 
both cases, and it is up to the Board now to take some 
action upon the basis of this appeal made. What is your 
desire ?

Mr. Jones: I think this Board must get about the busi­
ness of educating these children and opening schools. I 
make a motion that this Board not reconsider its action.

Mr. Taylor: I second that motion.
Dr. Browne: Any discussion! Are you ready for the 

question? Being no objection, I will call for the question. 
All in favor of the motion made by Mr. Jones that we 
maintain the position that we now have as the compromise 
plan and that the appeal for this suit not be honored, let 
it be known by raising your right hand.

Motion carried by a vote of 7 for—2 against.

Mr. Leverett: Mr. President, I have one more thing. 1 
appreciate the Board’s consideration. I think that we all 
recognize that we have to go through this although the 
Board had already made its decision. This is part of the 
procedure to get reviewed by the state board to go through 
something that has already been determined. Under Sec­
tion 11 of the rules and regulations of the State Board 
of Education governing this procedure, I am given the



—  1 7 9  —

right to ask the Board to grant a supersedes rule to the 
state; hence, putting into effect the compromise plan. I 
so request the Board to do at this time [301] and would 
appreciate the President submitting this to the Board 
because I anticipate that you will probably overrule it, 
hut still I have to make it in order to lay the foundation 
to go on to the state board, and then to the court. We 
ask that the Board grant us a stay in supersedes, pend­
ing the completion of a pivot with you before the State 
Board of Education.

Dr. Browne: Thank you Mr. Leverett. Mr. Martin.

Mr. Martin: Mr. Leverett, in view of the fact that we 
have to move on with some plan, and we have no plan 
other than the plan that has been approved, I would make 
a motion that we proceed with the plan as adopted and 
deny this request for a stay.

Mr. Bennett: I second the motion.
Dr. Browne: Any discussion of that motion! If there 

are no objections, I will call the question. All in favor 
of the motion made by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr. Ben­
nett, let it be known by raising your right hand.

Motion carried 7 for—2 against.
Dr. Browne: Any further business to come before this 

Board! If there are no objections, we stand adjourned.

[302] PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT 1

Athens, Georgia 
July 16, 1969

A called meeting of the Clarke County Board of Edu­
cation was held on the above date at 5 p. m. in the Board 
Room of the Administrative Offices, 419 Pope Street. 
President Browne presided at the meeting.



1 8 0  —

Present: Mr. Bennett, Dr. Browne, Mr. Cook, Mrs. Den­
ney, Mr. Jones, Mr. Ellard, Mr. Fleming, Mrs. Parsons, 
Mr. Taylor, Mr. Williams, and Mr. Martin. Mr. Epting 
and Dr. McDaniel were also present.

Absent: None.
Dr. Browne called the meeting to order saying that the 

purpose of the meeting was to give consideration to a 
desegregation plan, and he called on Dr. McDaniel giving 
him an opportunity to make a statement to clarify some 
points before the session got underway.

Dr. McDaniel said that “ the superintendent nor any 
member of the staff is proposing any particular plan. 
None of these plans are my plan, and none of these plans 
belong to any member of the staff. Some staff members 
would probably be divided on the plan they prefer. We 
are proposing no plan. Even though we do not propose 
a plan—this is a direct responsibility of the Board of Ed­
ucation—once you make the decision, I want to pledge 
to you and to the public the 100% cooperation of the 
superintendent and the staff to implement the plan, what­
ever plan you adopt. It will be very difficult, none will 
be easy. Most difficult task assigned to this school sys­
tem—we are willing and ready to carry out the plan you 
decide on. That will become our plan.

We will carry it out to the best of our ability so that 
all children will have the best education that we can pos­
sibly provide.”

Dr. Browne stated that at the close of the last meeting 
he had “ asked Mr. Cook and his committee (Mr. Jones 
and Mrs. Parsons) to look at the plan and make a rec­
ommendation to the Board. It became obvious that it was 
not fair to ask three members to assume that much re­
sponsibility. The committee has looked into the matter 
with Dr. McDaniel’s help and you have before you a



1 8 1  —

folder which summarizes the various alternatives that 
seem to be before us at this time. We will consider these 
at this meeting and make whatever decision is incumbent 
upon this Board. You wil recognize that time is of the 
essence. Taking action six weeks before school starts is 
not an easy task, delaying it further will not help the 
situation. It should not require a great deal more of dis­
cussion before we can arrive at a common procedure.”  He 
asked Mr. Cook to summarize.

[303] Mr. Cook said that Dr. McDaniel had prepared a 
folder and he had added a report containing the discussion 
and investigation that the committee had made setting 
forth the position of the committee. Mr. Cook reported 
that the letter dated June 30, 1969, signed by the Director 
of the Office for Civil Bights, stated that the proposed plan 
for desegregation approved by the Board on April 29, 
1969, and submitted to HEW was not considered adequate 
to meet the requirements of Title VI of the Civil Rights 
Act of 1964, and the hope was expressed that the Board 
would reconsider the plan presented and submit within 
20 days from the receipt of the letter Plan B or another 
similar plan which would be equally as effective.

Mr. Cook reviewed the three alternatives faced by the 
Board.

1. Stand on the submitted plan. With positive stand 
by the Board’s attorney on the legality of the sub­
mitted plan, the Board could consider no other plan 
and stand trial on justification of its position.

2. Resort to the plan suggested by HEW and 
worked out to reorganize the school structure so that 
all schools would be predominantly white with a 
minimum of 25% to a maximum of 40% Negro popu­
lation in each school. This is known as “ Plan B.”

3. Revise the original plan which was submitted to 
HEW, known as the “ Neighborhood Plan,”  by re-



— 1 8 2  —

designing each school zone so as to achieve a 20% 
to 40% Negro enrollment in each school. This would 
be done by geographic zones.

In discussing each alternative, Mr. Cook said the com­
mittee recognized that to “ stand pat”  on the submitted 
plan would result in delayed court action, suspense, conse­
quent indecision, and conditional planning in the progress 
of the school system. He said that there are aspects of 
the Neighborhood Plan which are not pleasing and would 
remain a constant problem should the plan be imple­
mented.

Further, he explained that Plan B involved such com­
plete rearrangement of physical facilities and revamping 
of teaching routines that it appeared impossible to imple­
ment the plan for the opening of schools on September 2. 
It was noted that Plan B evolved from a long-range study 
by professionals in education and contained possibilities 
for improved teaching by reclassifying schools on a grade 
basis. It was considered excessively expensive to carry 
out within the time limitations imposed by HEW.

With the suggestion from HEW that Plan B or another 
similar plan would be effective, Superintendent McDaniel 
and the administrative staff set about to determine if 
school zones lines could be drawn which would satisfac­
torily and economically populate all schools with a mini­
mum of 20% to a maximum of 40% Negro pupil ratio. 
From the previously prepared survey rendering complete 
data on pupil residence throughout the county, lines were 
extended [304] from each school into the nearest geo­
graphical areas that would encompass the residential areas 
of a sufficient number of Negro pupils to populate the 
respective school occupancy. It is reported that an over­
lay of the school bus routes on this map suggests that no 
additional bussing would be necessary to handle the as­
signments. He said that the superintendent and the ad-



—  1 8 3  —

ministrative staff had made no recommendation but had 
cooperated in all approaches to a desegregation plan. A 
map for each plan was posted on the wall.

Mr. Cook then stated that the committee had not estab­
lished a recommendation to take the place of, or to supple­
ment, the original Neighborhood Plan submitted to HEW. 
He said, “ We are pleased to present this subsequent dis­
cussion with necessary maps and data, but inasmuch as 
the original recommendation is not discarded, we leave 
further procedure to the discretion of the Board.”

Dr. Browne asked Mr. Epting if the Board decided to 
stick to the plan submitted as being the best plan, what 
course would be followed.

Mr. Epting explained that the Board would notify HEW 
that they have been unable to devise a workable plan and 
ask that the hearing be rescheduled for the earliest pos­
sible moment, and at the hearing the Board would present 
its argument and evidence to support its contention that 
the plan submitted is the most feasible one that it could 
devise for the coming school year. Supposedly, the hearing 
would be presided over by an impartial director. If, at the 
review or any other stage, the Board decides to resort to 
the courts, it does not have to follow an administrative 
procedure as it contends that HEW is acting contrary to 
law. “ It is my opinion that they are acting contrary to 
law. I think you have adequate basis for the charge that 
if they refuse to accept this plan, they are acting contrary 
to law.”  He explained that the cut-off of Federal funds 
would have to be submitted to a Congressional Committee, 
as required by law. He reminded the Board that whatever 
is done would have to be done before July 22. He said, 
“ We can still have the hearing, however. We can demand 
that hearing but it should be developed within the 20 
days. ’ ’



—  1 8 4

Dr. Browne thanked Mr. Epting for the clarification 
and reiterated that the committee had not made any recom­
mendation and that it was entirely up to the Board. He 
said that he hoped for some final action to determine the 
situation which the Board finds itself in.

Mr. Ellard addressed Dr. McDaniel, asking him to as­
sume that the Board would try to implement Plan B or 
the geographical plan. He asked from a physical stand­
point which plan would be easier to get ready by Sep­
tember 2.

Dr. McDaniel replied that, physically between the geo­
graphical plan and Plan B the geographical plan would be 
easier to accomplish because the schools were designed for 
grades 1-6 and the geographical plan would be using 
grades 1-6. He said that under Plan B there should be a 
period of in-service and work with teacher in order for 
it to be most effective, but that either plan could be put 
into operation and that either plan would be in operation 
on September 2.

[305] In answer to a question from Mr. Martin, Dr. Mc­
Daniel said that, “ You would like to sit down and work 
with teachers of grades five and six to build the concept 
of the whole school being just for these grades. Ideally, 
you would want to spend many sessions with teachers 
getting ready for this situation, but it could be done.”

Mrs. Parsons mentioned that in Mr. Cook’s report the 
word “ redesigning”  instead of “ gerrymandering”  had 
been inserted, and she preferred that it had stayed as 
‘ ‘ gerrymandering. ’ ’

Answering a question from Mr. Taylor, Dr. McDaniel 
said that there was no plan to release anyone nor employ 
any additional people under either plan.



—  1 8 5

Mr. Martin made a motion that the Board submit a re­
vised plan to HEW and that it submit Plan B for con­
sideration. Seconded by Mr. Ellard.

Mr. Jones stated that he could not bring himself to 
believe, as hard as he had tried and as often as he had 
changed his mind, that by setting up all-white schools 
and bussing Negro children to all areas of the school sys­
tem to achieve a racial balance in their interest of equal 
educational opportunities, the Board was solving the prob­
lem. He said that Negro children who found themselves 
in nothing but a sea of whites might develop an inferiority 
complex to such an extent that it would change the course 
of their lives. He said that the Board should not let HEW 
tell the community that they have so much money that 
they would give, but if you don’t do certain things you 
won’t get it.

I believe this Board should do all that is in its power 
to go one step further with the plan it has submitted. I 
do know that we would survive without the Federal 
money. I believe that all schools should be integrated and 
some should be predominantly white and some should be 
predominantly Negro. The easy way is possibly sewing 
seeds of discontent to shatter peaceful relations that this 
community has enjoyed for so many years.”

Mr. Bennett expressed doubt that Clarke County was 
ready to give up the concept of the Neighborhood School. 
He said that if we go to plan B or the geographical zones 
the neighborhood school concept is gone and that any other 
plan is an assembly-line approach.

Mr. Taylor said he thinks we should try to keep the 
neighborhood concept as much as possible. I certainly am 
not going to fight HEW because their intentions are to 
make living conditions better for all. I feel that we should 
go along with what they are asking us to do—to submit a 
plan. I think Plan B is the best plan at this time.



—  1 8 6  —

Mr. Martin pointed out that he did not make the motion 
to submit Plan B on the basis that it was approved by 
HEW. He said that he had spent considerable time look­
ing into the matter, and he pointed out the advantages of 
Plan B:
[306] 1. nearest thing to preserving neighborhood school 

(a school in every neighborhood) for grades 5-6, and 
grades 1-4. It would also allow using the same plan 
when the kindergartens are added by dropping one 
grade down,

2. completely against drawing lines for the sake of 
reaching a 70-30 ratio; geographical zones just a stop­
gap,

3. Plan B is a progressive step—the physical educa­
tion specialist works only with grades 5 and 6 so she 
would be going to 4 schools instead of all the elemen­
tary schools and the same thing would be true for the 
band instructor,

4. bus routes look long in the other plans, and
5. Plan B comes nearer to being a permanent solu­

tion. He added that the only thing he had against 
Plan B was the fact that HEW had recommended it.

Mr. Ellard brought out the fact that there would be no 
hold up in implementing the plan, that the administrative 
staff could begin the next day because they had assurance 
that the plan would be approved.

Mr. Fleming said that he thought the Board would be 
doing the Negro people as much injustice as they could 
do if they adopted Plan B or the geographical plan. He 
said he agreed that the Negro race wants some identity 
and that it would be worked at from a community stand­
point and that he agreed with Mr. Jones.

Mr. Ellard said he was concerned with the decline of 
the effectiveness of the teaching level and stated that he 
would submit Plan B as being the one he would vote for.



—  1 8 7

Mr. Cook said to implement Plan B would be an emer­
gency measure and that there was hardly time to carry 
out the plan and that he was therefore fearful of a year 
of sacrifice rather than progress. He said that he was not 
opposed to reorganization of the system if it could be 
worked out without pressure.

Mr. Martin asked Dr. McDaniel if it would be a lost 
year, and Dr. McDaniel said that he thought it could be 
handled.

Mrs. Denny said that she was interested in everybody 
regardless of color and wanted all to have an equal oppor­
tunity and that she was interested in the plan that would 
provide the best education for the most people.

Mr. Taylor said that Plan B would come nearer to elimi­
nating a dual system in the long run. He asked about the 
possibility of utilizing the geographical plan this year and 
going to Plan B next year.
[307] Dr. Browne explained that the plan was to be for 
the coming school year and that for any subsequent year 
the Board could change, saying that it was always possible 
to make adjustments in time.

Mr. Martin asked if HEW was under any obligation to 
answer the Board with any haste.

Mr. Epting said that he thought the Board was in a 
position to demand that the hearing be rescheduled. That 
a minimum of ten days to decide on when to have the 
hearing. I think you can get the hearing a short time af­
ter the ten days are up.

Mr. Fleming: “ I am convinced that all of the members 
have made up their minds about how they want to vote.’ 
He called for the question.

Dr. Browne stated that he thought it appropriate to give 
people in the audience an opportunity to make statements 
to the Board before the question was called.



— 1 8 8  —

Mr. Bob Strayer (representing himself) said, “ I believe 
yon have sincerely attempted to arrive at a decision.”  He 
spoke in favor of the plan originally adopted by the 
Board.

Dr. Albert Ike said the Board was familiar with the pe­
tition he presented against the Neighborhood Plan and 
said that “ the best plan to give the best education for the 
largest number of students in the county is the only thing 
the Board had to consider.”

Mr. A1 Chambers said that under Plan B the Board 
would be violating the rights of citizens and he urged the 
Board to stay with the Neighborhood Plan.

Mrs. Harry Anderson said that she thought Plan B 
would bring many problems but she wanted to urge the 
parents to permit their children to adust to the situation.

Mr. C. F. Chambers pointed out that the Citizens Ad­
visory Committee had met 19 times last year and had 
recommended that Board adopt Plan B. He cautioned that 
adopting the geographical plan as a stop-gap would bring 
about the need for another decision next year, and he 
urged the Board to adopt a plan that would be the same 
thing “ two years in a row” .

Mr. Jack Farrar spoke in favor of Plan B and urged 
the Board to adopt it and implement it this school year.

Dr. Browne said that he approached what each person 
had to say. “ People are right to make independent judg­
ments and let themselves be heard.”  He said that he re­
spected those who disagreed with him and appreciated 
those who agreed with him, and that with either plan he 
felt they would all work together and get the job done. 
He said that his personal feeling and the thing uppermost 
in his mind was what would be best for the educational 
values of this school [308] system, today, tomorrow, next



—  1 8 9

year . . . and that educating the child to face the situa­
tion that he will need to face when he comes out of 
school. “ One of the objectives is to do away with a dual 
school system. If you have schools of distinct color lines 
. . . one of the considerations, “ how far along this line 
can we go toward doing away with a dual system . . . 
think of them as just children and teachers.

We have been seeing a change of our social structure 
in the United States. We cannot depend on things being 
the same. Each person has the right to participate and 
understand and maintain some semblance of peace in our 
society. During his developmental years he can begin 
to do this. What does he know about the world and the 
people who are in it and recognize himself as an important 
human being. Some background of judgment, fairness, 
honesty, and fairplay. This goal is sufficient that we 
should do everything so that when they come back they 
can’t create a divided community. If we can do this and 
not interfere with the learning of this child. It seems 
to me that with all considerations, educational—as far 
as total structure and stability—Plan B is the one that I 
would prefer.

Mr. Jones seconded Mr. Fleming’s call for the question. 
The motion being made by Mr. Martin and seconded by 
Mr. Ellard to submit Plan B. The motion failed to pass 
by a 6-4 vote. (Mr. Martin, Mr. Ellard, Mr. Taylor, and 
Mrs. Denny voted for the motion.)

Mr. Fleming then made a motion to “ stand pat”  on 
the plan already submitted. Seconded by Mr. Jones.

Mr. Jones said that Clarke County had done more than 
most counties in Georgia and that there were many sys­
tems operating with much less. And he asked Mr. Epting 
if the Board could submit another plan at any time.

Mr. Epting replied that if the motion is adopted to stick 
by the original plan, the Board would have to call for a



—  1 9 0

hearing and then they could reevaluate but they should he 
prepared to back up the plan if they intended to stay with 
the submitted plan.

Mr. Taylor said he was against going to court and he 
made a substitute motion to submit an adjustment to the 
original plan known as the geographical plan. Seconded 
by Mr. Ellard.

Mr. Bennett asked Mr. Epting if the Board’s case would 
be more solid to back it as presented or to make any 
variation.

Mr. Epting suggested that the plan as presented not be 
altered in any way but said that the geographical plan 
could be taken along to the hearing. He said that he 
thought the Board should stick to the plan unless they 
could come up with a plan that substantially improved it. 
[309] Mr. Ellard said that inasmuch as Plan B had been 
defeated, he would go on record as voting for the geo­
graphical plan because he felt that it would work out bet­
ter than the plan which has been submitted.

Mr. Williams stated that he supported the geographi­
cal plan.

Mr. Martin said that he was against going to a plan 
drawing lines to meet percentages.

Dr. Ike asked permission to make a statement. Dr. 
Browne agreed.

Dr. Ike said, “ If you defeat the substitute motion and 
go back to the Neighborhood Plan you are saying that 
you are ignoring professionals in education.”

Mr. Farrar spoke again and said to stick to the Neigh­
borhood Plan was not lifing education in Clarke County.

Mr. Martin called for the question. Seconded by Mr. 
Williams.



—  1 9 1  —

Dr. Browne asked members to vote on the substitute 
motion to adopt the geographical plan which was made 
by Mr. Taylor and seconded by Mr. Ellard.

Three members voted for the motion (Mr. Ellard, Mr. 
Taylor, and Mr. Williams) and seven members opposed. 
The motion failed to pass.

The motion made by Mr. Fleming and seconded by Mr. 
Jones to stand on the plan submitted and take whatever 
steps are required to implement the plan was passed by 
a vote of 7-3 (Mr. Ellard, Mr. Williams, and Mr. Taylor 
voted against it.)

Mr. Epting said “ I am assuming that you want me to 
notify Mr. Panetta and the legal department of HEW that 
we want this hearing set at the earliest possible moment.”  
He said that he would get with Dr. McDaniel and map 
the strategy on the yearing. “ I assume that I have the 
authority to say that the Board has considered the pos­
sibilities of changes and has no change that they could 
adopt; therefore, we ask that this hearing be held.”

All agreed.

Meeting adjourned.

’ M

CPM :ek

Charles P. McDaniel 
Secretary

I certify that this is a copy of the minutes as recorded 
by the secretary. They have not been approved by the 
Board of Education.

Charlie McDaniel 
Secretary



[311] PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT 2

Athens, Georgia 
July 21, 1969

A called meeting of the Clarke County Board of Educa­
tion was held on the above date at 5 p. m. in the Board 
Room of the Administrative Offices. President Broadus 
Browne presided at the meeting.

Present: Mr. Bennett, Dr. Browne, Mr. Cook, Mrs. Den­
ney, Mr. Ellard, Mr. Fleming, Mr. Jones, Mr. Martin, Mrs. 
Parsons, Mr. Taylor, and Mr. Williams, Mr. Epting and 
Dr. McDaniel were also present.

Absent: None.

Dr. Browne called the meeting to order saying that it 
was important for each member to be present. He re­
viewed actions of the Board since receiving the letter 
from HEW that the Board adopted plan had been rejected 
and recalled the action taken by the Board at a called 
meeting July 16 in which it was agreed by a vote of 7-3 
to take whatever steps were required to implement the 
submitted plan. He stated that after the meeting was over 
he felt that the procedure followed was of such a nature 
that some members were not absolutely sure, the order of 
presentation of the three items being such that some mem­
bers felt they would like another chance. He stated that 
the calling of the meeting was entirely his idea, no one 
had asked him to do it and he felt that calling the meet­
ing would give a chance to have action based on a vote 
that was entirely clear. As president, he called such a 
meeting because he felt it should be done based on his 
best judgment. He said that he had checked with Mr. 
Epting and that the procedure to be followed with all 
members present was for someone who wished to do so, 
and one who voted with the majority, to make a motion 
to rescind the action taken at the meeting on last Wednes­

— 1 9 2  —



day (July 16). He explained that no one had to do so hut 
he wanted to present the opportunity.

Mrs. Parsons moved that the Board not rescind the 
action taken at the last meeting on July 16. Seconded by 
Mr. Jones.

Mr. Jones: “ I have heard some things I would not like 
to hear. I disagree with you in saying that the members 
of the Board did not know what they were doing. We have 
worked with this thing since last October. I think you are 
casting aspersions on this Board with such a statement. 
You are telling me that I did not know what I was doing. 
I have the highest respect for every member of this Board 
and I think they knew what they were doing.”

Dr. Browne: “ I take no exception to your statement. 
This was my own thinking. The calling of this meeting, 
whatever the consequences, rests with me. I feel that I 
did not present the issues in the order that I should have. 
I accept that responsibility.”

Mrs. Parsons: “ If the committee of the whole meeting 
had not been held on Saturday morning, I would not have 
needed to say this. You gave your word and your pledge 
to this Board and to the people that whatever plan was 
adopted, you would help to implement to the best of your 
ability. We adopted [312] a plan and you have gone con­
trary to this because you did not like the vote.”

Dr. Browne: “ I did not like the vote, it is true.”

Mrs. Parsons: “ The meeting on Saturday morning, in 
my opinion, violated the policy of this Board that we do 
not hold secret or executive or committee of the whole meet­
ings without the majority of the Board agreeing before­
hand. It was a meeting to which the public was not in­
vited and the press was not told about it. I assume this 
was an executive session—in violation of Board policy. 
I have disagreed many times, but I do not have the

— 1 9 3  —



—  1 9 4

privilege of calling the Board back to order. You do have 
this privilege but it seemed a little bit out of order. I have 
strong feelings that we have a policy—we should stick 
with what is right to do.”

Mr. Taylor called for the question.

Dr. Browne: “ Technically you are correct. I am not 
sorry.”

Mrs. Parsons: “ This kind of thing will continue to 
happen.”

Mr. Fleming seconded Mr. Taylor’s call for the question.

Dr. Browne: “ Mrs. Parsons’ motion is that we do not 
rescind the action which was taken last Wednesday.”

Five members voted for the motion, five opposed the 
motion. Dr. Browne voted with the ones opposing the 
motion. The motion lost by a vote of 6-5.

Mr. Martin then made a motion that the Board rescind 
the action taken at the meeting on July 16 which was to 
stay with the plan adopted and take the case to court. 
Seconded by Mr. Taylor.

Mr. Martin said that he voted for the motion because 
there was nothing left. He said he felt the Board might 
reach a decision that would not be a matter of going to 
court and that the administrative staff would have more 
solid direction to plan on.

Mr. Bennett said he felt very strongly that the Board 
was likely to take some action that it would regret. At a 
time when we are fully aware of the responsibility we 
have to this community and to the children, I don’t think 
anyone did not understand the issues at stake. Whether 
I am on the winning or losing side, it has always been 
my action (I have never asked for a recount). But when 
a Board of Education has the responsibility that rides with 
each of us to stand forth and be counted about what he



—  1 9 5  —

honestly believes to be the best for the community, and 
then get back into a situation, I wonder how we can go 
back to the community and ask for backing. I did not say 
the Board was wrong because they voted differently to 
what I felt. I think we are making a decision, likely to 
make a decision, which will be tainted. Any decision com­
ing out of a situation such as this “ . . . expresses sincere 
regret that this ever came back into a public voting such 
as this”  (Received deafening applause).
[313] Mr. Taylor said that he did not see anything wrong 
with changing your mind if you thought you had made a 
decision that was not in the best interest of all. “ I think 
we should reconsider.”  “ I think we should reconsider 
and I appreciate your calling the Board back in session.”

Mr. Fleming: “ When we reach the stage of almost a 
tie on an issue as important as this is, the community 
split, we are split, I don’t know where we are going from 
here. This is the worst thing that could happen to our 
schools, community. We have built schools in neighbor­
hoods and have one we are yet to move into. Now we 
vote out the neighborhood school. There is no question 
but what any other plan we could adopt would cost quite 
a sum of money. A very serious mistake to go anyway 
but the neighborhood school (applause).

Mrs. Denney: I don’t see that we have any plan. They 
have rejected the plan and we really don’t have a plan, 
so what makes everyone think it will be accepted the 
second time.

Mr. Cook: Acting as chairman of the committee which 
devised the so-called neighborhood plan. This commit­
tee attempted to define its position according to the re­
quirements set up by H. E. W. which gave a time limit 
to establish a procedure to go by. This committee dis­
cussed generalities, developed actual facts on which to 
base their recommendation as to a plan setting as best we



—  1 9 6

knew how. This committee attempted to find the best 
plan fitting our community and made the recommendation 
on that basis. As chairman, I can’t see any reason to 
rescind it.

Dr. Browne: “ As I see the responsibility of the Board 
of Education as a body and as each of its members, . . . 
What is the best thing for children, for the school sys­
tem, and for education. I believe the members of this 
Board has used this as criteria for making the decision. 
As I have interpreted the Civil Bights Act is to do away 
with separate' schools—the main theme—separate schools 
are not equal schools. If we could face that fact, the 
neighborhood plan has built within it to make it im­
possible to provide equal education for all children. He 
read from a document prepared by Dr. Morrill Hall 
(School Desgregation Education Center, University of 
Georgia) whose training, business, motivation is to do 
something for children’s education. I accept this. They 
worked hours on end examining the situation. This plan 
would provide a fair and equitable education for every 
child. We are responsible for seeing that it does that. 
We can break down these barriers and provide oppor­
tunities for children. I don’t think that I as a person 
have been able to spend this much time. This is why 
I feel—can’t help but believe that if people understood 
this, they would feel differently about it. The neighbor­
hood plan is the way we have always done things. You 
cannot do away with a dual school system using that plan. 
I am not considering what H. E. W. recommended—I 
think there are other plans that present greater education 
for children, stability in our community, and our admin­
istrative staff to get on with the business of providing the 
best. I just had to have the opportunity to say this. If 
I sit here and saw damage done to the Clarke County 
School system I would have to carry it with me as long 
as I live. I felt they have to have the opportunity to look 
again”  (applause).



[314] Mrs. Parsons: “ If you are so convinced and you 
have sat on this Board for (this time) why have you 
not expressed this feeling and done something about it 
before now! If you are not considering HEW, then why 
are you bringing it up now?”

Dr. Browne: . . . stand convicted on part of that, . . . 
not willing to stick my neck out to be different. ”

Mr. Jones: (In asking for a hearing) . . . “ we will be 
going before ‘ supposedly’ an impartial director and pre­
senting our facts and let him rule on it before we (take 
it to court). You seem to be taking the position that if 
we don’t do what you want . . . you and others have 
gotten together and said you wanted to have Plan B. I 
think it is contrary to what this Board should do.”

Dr. Browne: “ I have not asked anyone to vote with 
or against me.”

Mr. Bennett: “ Dr. Browne, I think you have always ex­
pressed confidence in this Board and led us well in the 
past—nothing degrading to your leadership but when you 
have a majority of 7-3 on an issue voted in wide open 
daylight with thorough discussion, I would like to ask 
you what better percentage would you hope to get out of 
this, especially in view of your pledge to back this Board 
in whatever decision was made. A 7-3 majority is a con­
vincing majority and would not require question.”

Dr. Browne: “ I had what I thought was sufficient evi­
dence that at least two of those votes were made be­
cause they felt that they did not have a free choice.”

Mrs. Denney: “ I have not supported the Neighborhood 
Plan because East Athens would have had 75 white chil­
dren and 405 negro children and Oconee would have had 
195 white children and 137 negro children. How many 
of you, who have applauded so loudly, had this ratio in 
the school where your children would attend? I regret

— 1 9 7  —



—  1 9 8  —

that I voted, but since we had no plan I had to give my 
support to the Board. I have never been for the Neigh­
borhood Plan.”

Mrs. Parsons: (to Mrs. Denney) “ Do you understand 
that we represent the total county!”

Dr. Browne opened the meeting for persons in the audi­
ence to speak to members of the Board.

Mrs. Clifton Barrett: “ If you don’t have children in 
public schools, how can you feel in your heart that yon 
can tell us what to d o !”

Mrs. Hardy Edwards: “ I have a child in public school. 
I would be in favor of the Board rescinding the action.”

Mrs. Laura Fortson: “ I speak as a person who has 
taught class in College Avenue and West Broad schools. 
I saw that they were inadequate, they just are not as 
good. I think the only way it can change is to have 
a number of white children and white parents to get in 
there and (demand these changes). [315] I think it is 
the most healthy thing that can happen in our society. 
As a teacher I am concerned for all children. While I 
was teaching in these two schools I met with the highest 
cooperation.”

Cecil Smith: Referred to a letter that he wrote Mr. 
Finch and the reply stated that racial balance was not a 
requirement.

Bill Donaldson: “ Please don’t experiment with our 
children. Plan B is dangerous, it is untested.”

Dr. Ike: “ You have heard a teacher saying that to mix 
would be healthy.”

Mrs. Boyce (Whitehead area). “ I live one block from 
Whitehead School. I had a child in West Broad and he 
did well. I do not like bussing.”



1 9 9  —

A lady who stated she lived on Ruth Street said she did 
not see why they should be forced to move to get in a 
good school. The only ones who agree with the Neigh­
borhood Plan live in the Gaines, Barnett Shoals, or White- 
head Road areas. I think it is the responsibility of this 
Board to see that they get equal teachers and other 
things.

Ed Mauldin: “ I resent the hypocrisy exemplified when 
they say I am a racist just because I don’t want my child 
bussed. I would suggest that you adopt a plan to avoid 
racial implications. ’ ’

Mr. Bob McAlpin, Mrs. Patsy Sailors, Mrs. Massey, Mrs. 
Pauline Kennedy, Mrs. Paul Dorsey, Paul Dorsey, David 
Firor, Don Harris, Joan Alexander, all voiced opinions.

Mr. Bennett pointed out the possibility of more drop­
outs saying that just because a child is moved his level 
of achievement is not changed and the child will have to 
progress from where he is. He asked what would hap­
pen to a child when he is put in a school where 70% 
are ahead of him.

Mr. Taylor said that the level of achievement for the 
negro is below but that he must be exposed or he will 
always be outside of the middle stream.

Dr. Browne r6ad a telegram which he received from 
Governor Maddox urging the Board . . . (see telegram, 
if important).

Mr. Taylor called for the question which was to rescind 
the action taken at the meeting on July 16. Seconded 
by Mr. Martin. Five members voted for the motion, and 
five members voted against it. Dr. Browne voted to re­
scind the action and the motion carried by 6-5 vote.

Mrs. Parsons asked Dr. Browne if he was planning to 
resign. He replied, “ No.”  She asked, “ Have you been



—  2 0 0  —

asked to resign? Is there a possibility that you might 
be told to resign?”

[316] Mr. Williams: “ I have never been wholeheartedly 
in favor of Plan B. I do not vote to go along with the 
plan as adopted last week. I had hoped to reach a com­
promise. I would like to propose that this Board adopt 
Plan B. I have looked at the financial point of view, 
have looked at it from educational standpoint. I have 
to live with myself. I have two daughters presently en­
rolled in the Athens Academy but they attended Alps 
Road School for several years.”

Mr. Williams made a motion that the Board adopt Plan 
B. Seconded by Mr. Taylor.

Mr. Jones: “ I oppose Plan B and every member knows 
why. It does away with the negro school and I say we 
should maintain some identity. This plan is based that 
all negroes are underprivileged—some whites are. It is 
an experiment. I think it will do away with all our 
negro teachers and principals. It is most costly and will 
be difficult to get ready by September 2. It uses a school 
we do not need. We must use the school under Plan B 
because by using it you create less negroes in a school. 
We need space for other things.”

Don Harris from the audience expressed concern about 
implementing Plan B just 35 days before September 2 
(first day of class). “ I don’t believe this can be imple­
mented. Hoy many new busses, how many drivers?”

Dr. Browne: “ Wo don’t have to buy additional busses.”
Mr. Martin: “ We “would not retire some busses which 

we had planned to retire.”

Mrs. Parsons: “ I believe there are more children than 
can be put in the three busses. Our figures 
right.”

are never



—  2 0 1

Mr. A1 Chambers asked if Plan B was the most preve- 
lant throughout the country. He asked about the legal 
aspects of Plan B.

Dr. Browne: “ No one else has Plan B. Plan B was 
made to fit a particular situation in Clarke County.”

Mr. Epting answered the question from Mr. Chambers 
regarding the legal aspects. He said, “ I think the plan 
you have adopted is within the law. HEW cannot re­
quire bussing to achieve racial balance. I don’t see that 
HEW can prohibit bussing. I assume that HEW will 
approve Plan B. As far as I know, either plan will com­
ply with the law.”

Mr. Chambers: “ Did not HEW suggest that we adopt 
Plan B ?”

Mr. Epting: “ I think they had the right to do that.”
Mrs. Hugh Morgan: “ I had a child who stood up to 

ride to school. Now, I have four children and I refuse 
to put my children on a bus to stand, and I feel that the 
busses are unsafe if they are not already using them.”
[317] The meeting was thrown into utter confusion by a 
question from the audience as to which schools would feed 
into Lyons Junior High.

Mrs. Parsons: ASKED why the people who favored 
Plan B did not know anything about it.

Mr. Fleming inquired if a motion to amend a motion 
would be in order.

Mr. Epting said it would be open for a substitute mo­
tion or an amendment to a motion.

Mr. Fleming: “ I believe we can come up with a com­
promise. A plan other than Plan B or the plan submitted. 
I would like to make a motion to postpone action to study 
and see if we can come up and be united as a Board.”



—  2 0 2  —

Mr. Fleming made a motion to table the motion made 
by Mr. Williams (to adopt Plan B). Seconded by Mr. 
Jones.

Tbe motion to table was passed by a vote of 7 to 3. 
Those voting to table the motion were Mr. Martin, Mrs. 
Parsons, Mrs. Denney, Mr. Fleming, Mr. Cook, Mr. Jones, 
and Mr. Bennett. Those opposing the motion were Mr. 
Ellard, Mr. Taylor, and Mr. Williams.

Mr. Martin made a motion that the Board meet as a 
committee of the whole to try to work out a compromise 
plan. Seconded by Mr. Fleming. Mr. Jones objected say­
ing that he wanted the press. Mr. Martin maintained that 
it was the purpose for the Board to sit down in a discus­
sion without having an audience.

Mrs. Parson amended the motion to invite the news me­
dia to any meeting. Seconded by Mr. Jones.

The amended motion failed to pass by a vote of three 
for and seven against.

The motion to meet as a committee of the whole was 
passed by a vote of 8 for and 2 against.

Dr. Browne said that the letter had been sent to HEW 
requesting a hearing. “ It has been their past practice that 
anytime during the procedure, if the Board changes its 
mind and notifies HEW, the hearing can be called off.”

Mr. Paul Dorsey: “ I would like for you to go into ses­
sion and come up with a majority. I don’t think the peo­
ple of Clarke County will support you wholeheartedly un­
less you do.”

Dr. Browne set Wednesday evening at 7:30 (July 23) 
as the time for the Board to meet in a committee of the 
whole.

Meeting was adjourned.



—  2 0 3  —

[319] PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT 3

Athens, Georgia 
July 30, 1969

A called meeting of the Clarke County Board of Edu­
cation was held on the above date at 7 :30 p. m. in the 
Board Boom of the Administrative Offices, 419 Pope Street. 
Dr. Broadus Browne, president, presided.

Present: Mr. Bennett, Dr. Browne, Mr. Cook, Mrs. Den­
ney, Mr. Fleming, Mr. Jones, Mr. Ellard, Mr. Martin, Mrs. 
Parsons, Mr. Taylor, and Mr. Williams. Also present were 
Mr. Epting, attorney, and Dr. McDaniel, secretary. 
Absent: None.

Dr. Browne called the meeting to order. He recognized 
the large crowd and asked that they remain quiet and 
orderly so that the business of the meeting could be heard 
by all. He explained to the visitors that the procedures 
of the Board of Education called for a discussion by the 
Board members first, after which he would open the meet­
ing for comments and questions by parents.

Dr. Browne explained that the meeting had been called 
to discuss desegregation plans for the next school year, 
1969-70. He gave a brief resume of the actions which 
have taken place prior to this meeting as regards this 
problem, and then explained that a committee had been 
appointed to study the situation and make a recommenda­
tion for the Board’s consideration at this time. He called 
upon Mr. Ellard to make the presentation of the new rec­
ommendation.

Mr. Ellard first stated that it had been the desire of the 
whole Board that the committee use the following cri­
teria in preparing a new plan:

1. A minimum of bussing.



—  204 —

2. Retain grades 1 through 6 in each elementary 
school.

3. Keep the cost as low as possible.
4. Be educationally practical and as good as pos­

sible for all children in this county.

He said that it was further suggested by members of the 
Board that these other ideas be incorporated, if possible:

1. A 50-50 ratio, as near as possible, be kept at East 
Athens and West Broad.

2. A minimum of 20% Negro and maximum of 40% 
Negro in the other schools.

3. A rearrangement of pupils in the five inner-city 
schools—Chase, West Broad, Barrow, East Athens, 
and Oconee.

Mr. Ellard then went on to explain the proposed Com­
promise Plan as pertains to the elementary schools.

[320] He said that this is a modification of the Neighbor­
hood Plan and will take advantage of the 1 and % mile 
walking distance from all schools. There are four pocket 
zones from which children will be bussed to Whitehead, 
Gaines, and Barnett Shoals, and one pocket zone from 
which children will walk to Barrow, to achieve desegrega­
tion of all schools. All other children living outside of 
the 1 and V2 mile walking distance from school will be 
zoned into a school by geographical zoning.

The elementary schools will retain grades 1 through 6. 
All schools will be integrated with the percentages rang­
ing between 49% Negro at West Broad to 20% Negro at 
Gaines.

Thirteen of the elementary schools will be used. The 
Oconee Street School will not be used as an elementary 
school but will house the special programs of the Clarke 
County School District.



—  2 0 5  —

Dr. Browne thanked Mr. Ellard for the complete de­
scription of the Compromise Plan and thanked both Mr. 
Ellard and Mr. Fleming for the fine job the committee 
had done.

After a brief discussion by the Board members, Dr. 
Browne opened the meeting for questions and comments 
by parents. Several parents, including a number from 
the University Heights area, voiced their opposition to 
the proposed plan.

Dr. Browne invited Dr. McDaniel to say a few words 
to the parents. Dr. McDaniel explained to the visitors 
that he had purposely kept quiet about his choice of a 
desegregation plan because he felt it was wise for him 
to be quiet. He said he would put every effort into which­
ever plan was decided upon; but that had he spoken out 
in favor of a plan which was not adopted, much of his 
effectiveness in carrying out the adopted plan would be 
gone. He vowed to put all of his energies and efforts into 
successfully carrying out whatever plan was adopted so 
that every boy and girl would have the very best edu­
cation that he could give them. He added also that it 
is going to take patience, understanding, and wisdom to 
carry through with any plan at this late date.

Dr. Browne asked that some action be taken in regard 
to a desegregation plan.

Mr. Jones motioned that the Board accept the Compro­
mise Plan as presented to the Board. Mr. Martin seconded 
the motion.

Mr. Ellard asked that the motion of Mr. Jones be added 
to read: for the 1969-70 school year.

Mr. Jones then remarked that he hoped that the Board 
would authorize the superintendent to spend what money



—  2 0 6  —

was necessary to implement a good educational program 
without the restrictions of the budget.

[321] Mr. Ellard then said that he was glad he had not 
visited East Athens School until after they had devised 
this plan, for if he had seen the condition of the school 
he would never have proposed this plan. The older sec­
tion, built about 18 years ago, is in terrible shape but is 
at the present time being renovated. The newer part of 
the school is in much better shape.

He said the white administration is to be condemned 
for the condition that the school is in today, not the Negro. 
“ We have forced the Negro to go to this school, now it 
is fitting that the white children should go to this school.”

He went on to say that we must make a decision about 
a plan tonight. There are only 768 hours, counting days, 
nights, and Sundays, left until school opens; and the 
superintendent needs a plan so that he may get to work 
on it.

Dr. Browne called for the question. Mr. Fleming, Mr. 
Ellard, Mr. Taylor, Mrs. Denney, Mr. Martin, Mr. Jones, 
Mr. Williams, and Mr. Bennett voted for the plan. Mrs. 
Parsons and Mr. Cook voted against it. Plan adopted.

The meeting adjourned.

Charles P. McDaniel 
Secretary

CPM:mc

I certify that this is a true copy of the Minutes as re­
corded by the secretary. They have not been approved 
by the Board of Education.

/ s /  Charles P. McDaniel 
Charles P. McDaniel 

Secretary





CHEROKEE
FOREST

VINCENT

OCONEE 
2  HEIGHTS

M k  WESTGATE
r  K  PARK

“cTmak"

re*
CARQUNF 

yflt-EROy ni t tTHWOOOBEL AIR 
-^HEIG HTS

ROBERT
JNBUSl

•ATHENA INDUSTRIAL

Im WUhaia

' % ELDER

■OREST

l E K H I I M  Y H S  V f -
iDAHS siowKigw/wi fespiCfffl

BEECH f  OOD S r ' I e

{rCHTUCK<

.̂AK̂ WOOD>PORO £1.:

A '//
P
% V  SHOALSVIE*

HOLIDAY
ESTATES

6AINES SCHOOL 
COMMUNITY

(STATES SOMERSET

KIN6SWOOD
\LAKEVIEW

RIVERSIDE pmVERSITY Wl  •VCEDAR 
X J v A  CREEK 

PARK'm  hills 
HILLS 0osL£i

IEIGHTS.w i
ESTATES

CLARKE
DALE

' ’agriculture

JTONRD. 9C-15D

AV. EXT.

M1LUEDGE CDI. 128- 
VILLIDGE CT. 
MILLEDGE HGTS. 
MILLCDGE TER. 1; 
MILLER ST.
MINOR 
MIMOSA DR- 
MITCHELL ST. 
MITCHELL BRIDGE

RD.
MOCKINGBIRD CIR. ' 
MOCKINGBIRD HILL 
MONROE ST.
MOOSE CLUB DR. 1 
MORELAND AV.
MOR RINGSIDE 
MORNING VIEW CR. I' 
WORKING VIEW DR. V 
M OR TON AV. I**
MORTONS AL. !
MOUNT VERNON PL. I

OAD ST. EXT. I 
MMERCE RD. 3 
BERTON DR. 5 
PS BRIDGE

SALES AND R A T A L S 
HADAV/AY REALTY COMPANY 
7 0 0  HAWTHORNE AVENUE 
ATHENS, GEORGIA 
L I  8 -5656

1ST. ST. SAC
2ND. ST. SB
3RD. ST. 8B-9A



—  2 0 8  —

[324] PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT 5

Neighborhood II

This neighborhood, located in East Athens, is bounded 
by the Seaboard Railroad, Thomas Street, the Georgia 
Railroad (all of which are strong man-made, functional 
barriers) and by the City limits, to the east.

Summary
1960 1968 (est.)

Population: 3,232 3,853

Housing: 1960 1966

Total Units 864 1,093 (1,167 d.u.)
Sound 255 447
Deteriorating 291 329
Dilapidated 318 317

Population

In 1960, this neighborhood contained a population of 
3,232 residents, and, in 1968, its population increased to 
3,853. Of this figure, 70.2 per cent were non-white, the 
second highest concentration of non-white population in 
the city. Being predominantly an area of families, the 
number of persons under the age of 18 and 65 years of 
age or over was the third highest in the city.

The female/male composition appears to be somewhat 
unbalanced for both white and non-white. All sections 
of the neighborhood, except the northeasterly portion, 
were above the city average of 1.05 to 1.



2 0 9  — -

Housing Conditions

Housing conditions are as bad in Neighborhood II as in 
any other neighborhood in the City. Of the total number 
of housing units in 1960, 70.5 per cent were either de­
teriorating [325] or dilapidated. In 1966, this figure was 
59.1 per cent, the fourth highest in the City. Although 
the number of houses with three rooms or less was not 
much above the 1960 city average (City—20.3 per cent, 
Neighborhood—32.6 per cent), overcrowding is a problem. 
Of all the occupied housing units, 31.8 per cent had 1.01 
or more persons per room. Overcrowding is especially 
critical in the westerly portion where more than 40 per 
cent of the housing units were overcrowded in 1960. The 
average home value throughout the neighborhood was 
below $7,500.

Sections of the neighborhood varied between 20 and 40 
per cent in the number of rental units in 1960. However, 
more than 40 per cent of the units in the southerly and 
central portions of the neighborhood were renter-occu­
pied, mostly by non-white families. The residences are 
predominantly single-family homes, with some duplexes. 
There are no group quarters or major mobile home courts 
in the neighborhood.

In 1960, 1.9 per cent of the total number of units were 
vacant, and, of these, 87 per cent were for rent.

Conditions in Nonresidential Areas

Mixed land use occurs on 34 per cent of the 73 blocks 
in the neighborhood. In the majority of instances, the 
admixture is due to the presence of small grocery stores 
or repair shops. The structural condition of such struc­
tures are, in most cases, sub-standard. Furthermore, many 
of the shops have outdoor storage which contributes to



—  2 1 0  —

the unattractive character of some areas in the neighbor­
hood.

To the west of the North Oconee River, peripheral to 
the CBD, are several blocks classified as entirely non- 
residential. Many of the buildings are in substandard 
structural condition as a result of their age and the in­
adequacy of original construction. One establishment, 
still operational, has been in existence for over a century. 
Certain activities, such as a meat slaughtering plant and 
a metal works, are nuisance industries, but their location 
is well-removed from any concentrated residential devel­
opment. A relatively few occupied units exist in this 
industrial area because urban renewal has demolished 
most of the housing in this portion of the neighborhood.

Traffic volumes are relatively low, and there are no 
major arterial roads through the neighborhood. However, 
some traffic congestion does exist at the Broad Street 
river crossing as a result of a large manufacturing plant 
and a one-lane bridge at this location.

[326] The neighborhood is devoid of any major retail 
center. However, the adjacent neighborhoods contain con­
venience goods shopping facilities, and the CBD is located 
immediately to the west of the neighborhood.

Adequacy of Community Facilities
There is one school, East Athens Elementary School, 

in this neighborhood. The residents are also served by 
College Avenue and Oconee Street elementary schools, 
located in adjacent neighborhoods. The junior and senior 
high schools are at least two miles from most residents 
of the area. The closest junior high school, Lyons, is 
located near the airport, a very poor school site and a 
great distance from the neighborhood.

The neighborhood has no parks, but there is a one-half 
acre tot-lot on the east side of Vine Street which is pro­



—  2 1 1  —

vided with play equipment. East Athens Elementary 
School offers a minimum of recreational facilities, and it 
is located adjacent to a vast area of vacant land. Dudley 
Park is across the Georgia Railroad tracks, in Neighbor­
hood 3, and provides both active and passive recreational 
facilities on ten acres of land. However, the park is not 
up to standards for providing the variety of recreational 
opportunities needed in the area, and, in general, park 
land and facilities are inadequate in the neighborhood.

Fire protection coverage is adequate, but this neighbor­
hood had a high incidence of fires in 1967. There are no 
hospitals or clinics in the area. Trash and garbage is 
collected twice weekly. The neighborhood contains the 
largest area of vacant land in the city, with the possible 
exception of Neighborhood 3.

The Neighborhood’s sanitary condition is one of the 
worst in Athens. An area extending from the City limits 
to the westerly portion of the neighborhood near the 
Central Business District, comprising about %  of the 
total land area of the neighborhood, is among one of the 
worst areas in the City in terms of the number of inci­
dents of unapproved refuse storage, trash, abandoned 
autos and appliances, etc. A portion of this Neighbor­
hood which connects with Neighborhood 1 lacks sewer 
service. This area is defined by the Seaboard Railroad 
tracks, Strickland Avenue and Peter Street.

Traffic volumes are relatively low and there are no 
locations characterized by a significant number of traffic 
accidents.

[327] Causes of Blight
As is the case with Neighborhood 1, this neighborhood 

is characterized by low-income negro families suffering 
from a vast array of social, economic and physical prob­
lems. Essentially, the causes of blight in this neighbor­
hood are identical to those in Neighborhood 1.



2 1 2 ____

Remedial Action
This neighborhood should receive the same remedial 

action as Neighborhood 1. Blight is not as concentrated 
as in the former neighborhood and a great deal of spot 
clearance and/or rehabilitation will be necessary. How­
ever, three cores of blight do exist to the point of warrant­
ing concentrated renewal or rehabilitation action: the area 
between the Oconee River, Fourth Street, and Strickland 
Avenue; the area to the north and west of Moreland Ave­
nue and Peter Street, respectively, to the City limits; and 
the area along the Georgia Railroad between Ingle Street 
and the City limits. The central portion of the neighbor­
hood, around the intersection of Arch, Broad and Mulberry 
streets, would lend itself more toward conservation and 
code enforcement measures.

[329] PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT 6

Plan B
Plan B presents one way that a different organizational 

structure can be used in fulfilling the responsibilities of 
the local school district as these responsibilities relate to 
abolishing the dual school system and to providing quality 
education for all pupils residing in the school district. In 
developing this plan consideration was given to placing 
the younger children in as many schools throughout the 
school district as feasible. Less importance was placed 
upon the proximity to home for older children and youth. 
Ten schools are proposed for levels one through four; 
four schools for grades five and six; and three schools 
for grades seven through nine.

The plan contains the following features:
1. The degree to which any plan is educationally 

sound will be determined by the instructional pro-



—  2 1 3  —

gram. There are features in this plan which could 
enhance the quality of education. By having more 
children of each age level within a building, some 
of the professional stall can he used in different ways. 
Example No. 1—By placing the total elementary band 
program in the four upper elementary schools, a better 
band program will result with reduced space needs 
and will allow more efficient use of the band staff. 
More efficient use of the hand staff could result in 
increased emphasis on general music in both Lower 
and Upper Elementary Schools. Example No. 2—The 
concentration of upper elementary pupils could pro­
vide a way of improving the science program by hav­
ing elementary teachers with recent science training 

[330] teach science for all the pupils in upper elementary 
schools.

2. The plan anticipates public school kindergarten 
and provides a structure in which kindergarten can 
be housed with the primary grades when the new 
high school plant is completed.

3. Because all facets of the community are involved 
in the plan, it should not contribute to re-segregation. 
Racial composition of the schools would vary from 
two schools with 38% Negro and 62% White to one 
school and with 21% Negro and 79% White.

4. More sofcio-economic balance would result under 
Plan B than is now present in the school district.

5. All teachers’ contracts are with the school dis­
trict and staff desegregation would be accomplished 
by assignment as has been the administrative pro­
cedure in the past.

6. The number of pupils eligible for transportation 
within the total school district for grades 1-9 would 
increase 10% above the percentage of the student



—  2 1 4  —

body which is now transported. By re-ronting the 
busses so that there is not a dual bus system, it 
should be possible to cut the added expense down to 
a reasonable figure and still provide transportation 
services to more pupils.

7. The plan provides for many of the lower ele­
mentary pupils who would be moved to schools dif­
ferent from the one which they now attend to be 
assigned to upper elementary schools closer to their 
homes. This means that the plan is as fair as any 
plan could be for the majority [331] of the pupils in 
the school district.

8. Plan B requires no new major construction or 
expenditures even though the figures used include 
some projected growth, and space is available for ad­
ditional growth. The junior high schools would need 
some of the portable classrooms which the school 
district owns.

9. The plan provides a way to abolish the dual 
school system in the 1969-70 school year for grades 
one through nine. When the new high school is com­
pleted, the senior high schools would be zoned to 
complete the abolition of the dual school system.

School information such as school level; size; projected 
enrollment figures; and transportation figures are given 
in the attached chart.



LOVER ELEMENTARY - GRAPES | - 4  (or K - 5)

P r o j e c t e d  E n r o l  In tend C n p a c i t y E x t r a  S p a c e s P e r c e n t a g e T r a n s p o r t a t i o n . P e r c e n t a g e .

Schirff! N e g ro Whi Te Tota l Ne^jrc W h it e T r a n s p o r t e d N o n - T r a n s . T r a n s p o r t e d

Alps R »a4 204 420 632 660 28 32 68 310 322 49 51

Barnett S h o a l s 145 233 336 54 C 154 36 62 309 77 83 29

'C o lle ge  Avenue 127 205 332 360 26 7  £ 62. 63 269 19 01

fowler D r i v e 103 133 291 360 69 37 63 192 99 66 54

Gaines 125 223 353 390 37 35 65 152 201 43 57

North A th e n s 98 370 463 4SC 12 21 79 276 192 59 41

Oconee S t r e e t 113 224 334 360 26 33 67 140 194 42 50

O glethorpe 169 354 523 540 17 32 68 199 324 38 62

West B road 202 351 553 600 47 37 63 144 409 U 74
, h in te rv l 1 I s 84 169 253 330 77 33. 67 182 71 72 ?8

Tota ls !37§ 2750 4125 4620 495 33 67 1967 2158 46 52

UPPER ELEMENTARY -  GRAPES 5 - 6 (or 4 -  5)

Barrow 129 298 427 510 83 30 70 158 259 37 63
Chase 159 297 455 540 84 35 65 214 242 4 7 53

East Athens 204 319 523 570 47 39 61 303 220 50 42
Whitehead 1 3 3 335 469 540 71 28. 72. 324 145 69. 31

T o ta l? 625 1250 1875 2160 285 33 -67 999 8 7 1 ? 3 47.

JUNIOR HIGH -  GRADES 7 -  9 (o r  6 - 8 )

Clarke Jun io r 396 836 1252 0 40 32 63 739 513 59 41
Pattie  Hi Tsman 290 590 833 7 12 34 65 639 249 72 28
Lyons J u n io r  H ig h 219 531 COO ). - ! > 35 64 564 3-5 9 4 6

T o ta ls 9 (3 1827 2740 .0 £0 53. 67 1942 798 2 1 29

Grand T o ta ls 2913 58Z7 8740 9500 840 33 67 4908 3832- 56 44



—  216

[334] PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT 7

Evaluation of Transportation Costs Under 
Zoning Plans

The following is a description of the evaluation and com­
parison of the costs of operating four of the zoning plans 
which have been considered by the Clarke County School 
District in recent months. The plans that were covered 
by this study are commonly known as:

1. Plan “ A ”

2. Plan “ B ”

3. “ Pocket Transportation”  Plan

4. “ Neighborhood”  Plan

The result of our evaluation is as follows:
Estimated 

Cost of 
Operation

Plan “A ” ....................................... $226,000.00
Plan “B” ....................................... $203,750.00
“Pocket Transportation” Plan $191,220.00 
“Neighborhood” Plan ............... $183,720.00

Our method of obtaining these comparisons 
in detail below.

Above 
(Below) 

Current Cost
$23,710.00 
$ 1,460.00 

($11,070.00) 
($18,570.00)

are described

Number of Students Transported

The first and most basic problem we encountered was 
that accurate figures indicating the number of transported 
pupils were not available for two of the plans. We found 
also that the plans for which the figures were available 
contained differing amounts for the anticipated enrollment. 
It was necessary, therefore, that we overcome these two 
problems before proceeding any further.



—  2 1 7  —

[335] Since Plan “ B ”  was the only one of the four plans 
for which we had accurate and detailed information deal­
ing with the number of transported and non-transported 
students in each section of the county, we based our esti­
mations on previous head-counts made under the lower ele­
mentary section of this plan. We listed the total number 
eligible for transportation prior to the conversion of the 
figures to represent the four grades within this section of 
Plan “ B ” . To the total of these figures we added or sub­
tracted the students that would or would not be trans­
ported under the “ Pocket Transportation”  and the 
“ Neighborhood”  Plans. We then determined that 52% 
of the first through sixth grade anticipated enrollment 
under Plan “ A ”  was estimated to be eligible for transpor­
tation. By applying this percentage to the 6000 enrollment 
amount anticipated under Plan “ B ” , we achieved a uni­
formity of figures for the first through sixth grades.

The next step was the estimation of the number trans­
ported in grades seven through nine. We arrived at an 
estimate for Plan “ A ”  by listing the current number trans­
ported, deducting the present Lyons seventh and eighth 
grade students living within one and one-half miles of 
Clarke Junior High School, adding the number of addi­
tional Burney-Harris High School ninth graders who 
would be eligible for transportation when that grade was 
removed to another school, and added an anticipated 
growth using the average for the last three years. To the 
figure thus arrived at for Plan “ A ”  we added the addi­
tional students transported under the other three plans.

The numbers shown as being transported for the high 
school grades and special education classes are the same 
for each, of the four plans. These estimates [336] were 
arrived at by listing the present number transported and 
adding a figure for anticipated growth.

The above calculations produced the following results:



—  2 1 8  —

Current 
Grade Number Plan Plan

Pocket
Transportation

Neighbor­
hood

Level Transported “A ” “B” Plan Plan
One through

Six ...........  2,097 3,129 2,966 2,274 1,902
Seven through

Nine ........... 1,916 1,885 1,893 1,995 1,934
Ten through

Twelve ___  1,334 1,380 1,380 1,380 1,380
Special

Education . 108 124 124 124 124

5,455 6,518 6,363 5,773 5,340

Increase/Decrease +1 ,063 + 9 0 8 + 3 1 8 — 115

Number of Buses Operated

The next area to which we devoted our attention was that 
of trying to determine how many buses would be required 
by each of the four plans. Since we felt that the most 
trips would be attainable under Plan “ B ” , we determined 
first the estimated number of buses to be used under this 
plan and then made adjustments to this figure to arrive 
at the estimates for the other plans.

In order to obtain three trips from a bus, it is necessary 
that some of the schools involving transportation be avail­
able with small zones. When these schools are available, 
by staggering the time schedules it is possible to make 
three trips without a bus unloading at two different schools 
operating on the same time schedule. We have in the past 
tried doubling buses for schools on the same schedule, and 
it has been proven to be unsatisfactory. The number of 
trips that you are able to obtain, consequently, depends 
almost completely upon the availability of school zones of 
the right dimensions. [337] Since under Plan “ A ”  the 
elementary grades are split between two sets of schools, 
we do not believe that the changes mentioned above will 
have a great effect on the cost of operation. We have not



—  2 1 9  —

given any consideration to this change in the cost calcula­
tions for this plan.

Under Plan “ B ”  with the elementary grades split and 
with more trips being involved per bus, we believe that 
there is a possibility of a slight increase in the length of 
the routes. Once again, the exact increase can not be de­
termined without a complete routing of the buses under 
the plan. In order to give some consideration to this fac­
tor, we have used a 1% increase in the cost of operating 
this plan.

Cost Comparison

It is anticipated that the transportation expenses for the
year ending June 30, 1969, will be as follows:

Salaries:
Director .......................................................$ 4,600.00
Bus Drivers—Regular D riving...............  66,400.00
Mechanics and Other Garage Employees 24,500.00
Clerical and Other Employees.................  2,320.00
Sick Leave Transportation Personnel .. 900.00

Replacement of Vehicles..............................  28,800.00
Pupil Transportation Insurance .................  3,120.00

Bus Maintenance Expense:
Repair Parts .............................................  17,660.00
Contracted Repairs ..................................  5,400.00
Other Expense for Maintenance of Buses 330.00 

Bus Operation Expense:
Gasoline ......................................................  20,680.00
Oil, Wash and Lubrication....................... 2,740.00
Tires and Tubes.......................................... 6,000.00
Other Expense for Operation of Buses.. 460.00



— 220

Other Expenses:
Supplies and Other Expense for Garage

and Garage Equipment Operation . . . .  2,950.00
Garage and Garage Equipment Repair . . 2,800.00
Miscellaneous Expense ............................. 500.00

Contributions to Employee Retirement:
Teachers’ Retirement System .................  280.00
Social Security ..........................................  4,520.00

Additional Pupil Transportation 
Equipment .................................................. 7,330.00

Total Expenses.................................... $202,290.00

[338] After evaluating the zones under Plan “ B ” , we de­
termined that fourteen buses could be used for three trips 
each and twenty-three buses for two trips. By using 
thirty-seven buses in this manner, we would be able to 
transport all of the children riding under Plan “ B ” .

For Plan “ A ”  we found that it would be possible to use 
only five buses on a three trip basis; consequently, multi­
plying the five buses by the average number transported 
by the three trip buses under Plan “ B ” , only 1,050 stu­
dents could be transported on a three trip basis. By divid­
ing the balance remaining by the average load of the two 
trip buses under Plan “ B ” , we determined that thirty- 
eight buses would be required for the two trip phase of 
Plan “ A ” .

By going through similar calculations for the two re­
maining plans, we obtained the following results:



— 221 —

Current Plan Plan
Pocket

Transportation
Neighbor­

hood
System “A ” “B” Plan Plan

Number of
Buses 37 43 37 36 34

Increase/De-
crease + 6 0 — 1 — 3

Length of Bus Routes

With the merger of the bus routes for Athens High 
School and Burney-Harris High School and the elimination 
of the need for the Lyons buses to cover the entire county, 
the average length of the bus routes under the “ Pocket 
Transportation”  and “ Neighborhood”  Plans would be 
less than this year’s. The exact reduction, however, can 
not be determined without a complete routing of the buses 
under the plans. In order to give some consideration to 
this factor in the cost comparisons given below, we have 
simply used a 5% reduction in the cost of operating these 
two plans.

[339] The cost comparisons quoted below are actually in 
terms of operating all of the plans at the current rate of 
expense. The average driver’s salary for next year will 
increase due to a state raise; but in order to obtain the 
cost comparison on the same basis, we have disregarded 
this fact. The amount to be spent for replacement buses 
for next year roughly approximates the amount expended 
for the current year’s replacement and new equipment pur­
chases.

Since both the “ Pocket Transportation”  and “ Neighbor­
hood”  Plans involve a fewer number of buses than our 
current operation, we can safely assume that their cost will 
be less than the present cost. In order to arrive at the 
amount of this saving, we have attempted to separate the 
expenses that would and would not vary with the number 
of buses. The expenses that are fixed are as follows:



Director’s Salary...................................... $ 4,600.00
G-arage Supervisor’s Salary .................  5,900.00
Clerical Salary..........................................  2,320.00
Replacement of Vehicles.........................  28,800.00
Pupil Transportation Insurance ............ 10.00
Supplies and Other Expenses of Garage 2,950.00 
Garage and Garage Equipment Repair.. 2,800.00
Miscellaneous Expense ........................... 500.00
Teachers’ Retirement System ...............  280.00
Social Security ........................................  590.00
Additional Equipment............................. 7,330.00

Total Fixed Cost .........................$56,080.00

This would mean, therefore, that the variable expense 
would be the remainder of $146,210.00. As we mentioned 
earlier under the “ Pocket Transportation”  and “ Neigh­
borhood”  Plans, we should expect a 5% reduction in the 
cost of operation due to a shorter average bus route. This 
would mean that the total variable cost with which we are 
dealing is $138,900.00 or approximately $3,754.00 per bus. 
This would mean that the cost of operating the “ Pocket 
Transportation”  Plan would be $191,220.00, and the cost 
of the [340] “ Neighborhood”  Plan would be $183,720.00.

Since Plan “ B ”  utilizes the same number of buses, we 
assume that it could be operated for the same basic cost 
as the current year’s transportation system. With, the 1% 
factor mentioned earlier dealing with the length of the bus 
routes, the estimated cost for operating this plan would 
be $203,750.00.

Plan “ A ” , which uses six additional buses and which 
would have an average bus route roughly the same length



as the current method, would add $23,710.00 to the opera­
tion costs and $43,200.00 to the capital outlay expenses. 
Plan “ A ” , consequently, would have a total cost of 
$269,200.00. We have excluded, however, the cost of the 
capital outlay for new equipment and have used $226,000.00 
as the net operating expenses for Plan “ A ” .

[342] PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT 8

Department of Health, Education, and Welfare 
Washington, D. C. 20201

Office of the Secretary

Dear Superintendent Wood:
June 30, 1969

Reference is made to the desegregation plan for the 
Clarke County Schools, Athens, Georgia, as contained in 
a letter dated April 30, 1969, and presented to this Office 
in a meeting held on May 2, 1969.

The plan as presented provided for a terminal geograph­
ical zoning of the elementary schools at the beginning of 
the 1969-70 school year. A feeder plan showing assignment 
of those elementary schools into junior high schools, for 
the same year was also included. The senior high schools 
were to remain on freedom of choice until the 1970-71 
school year due to the possible construction of a new high 
school. In the event the new high school plant was not 
available for the 1970-71 school year, an alternate geo­
graphical zoning plan was presented for grades 10-12 to 
be effective with the opening of school in September 
1970-71.

As you were advised in the meeting, the plan presented 
by your Board could not be accepted until it could be as­



certained which plan, of all the plans available to your 
district, would meet the requirements of the Civil Rights 
Act of 1964. Your attention was specifically invited to the 
fact that the proposed plan would leave the present Negro 
school of East Athens close to 85 percent Negro, and the 
Negro, West Broad Elementary School, over 60 percent 
Negro. Further, the plan provided for the operation of the 
Barrow, Gaines, Barnett Shoals, and Whitehead Elemen­
tary Schools with over 90 percent of the student body in 
each such school being white. In view of these conditions, 
it was felt that no final determination could be made as to 
the acceptability of your proposed plan until this Office 
had an opportunity to review in depth the feasibility of 
other zoning plans, which we understood had been consid­
ered by the Board.

This Department, in adhering to the principles set forth 
by Federal courts, including the Supreme Court, has de­
termined that school officials are obliged under the law to 
take whatever steps are necessaary to implement the most 
effective method for eliminating the dual school system 
within the [343] district. The Fifth Circuit Court of Ap­
peals in Davis v. Board of School Commissioners of Mobile, 
393 F. 2d 690 (1968) stated that a primary concern is 
“ to see that attendance zones in the urban areas . . . 
(are) devised so as to create a unitary, racially nondis- 
criminatory system.”  They stated that “ a conscious ef­
fort should be made to move boundary lines and change 
feeder patterns which tended to preserve segregation.”  
The Court quoted with apparent approval from paragraph 
12-b of the DHEW Guidelines that “ School systems are 
responsible for assuring that to the extent it is adminis­
tratively feasible, the zone boundaries do not perpetuate 
any vestiges of a dual school structure and that among the 
various attendance zone arrangements which are possible, 
it establishes the one which best promotes elimination of 
its dual school structure.”



—  2 2 5  —

In Board of Public Instruction of Duval County, Florida 
v. Braxton (5th Cir. 1968, 402 F. 2d 900), the Circuit Court 
quoted with approval from the Order entered in the dis­
trict Court that:

“ Zone boundaries or feeder patterns designed or used 
to perpetuate or promote segregation shall be discon­
tinued, and such zone lines shall be redrawn, wherever 
feasible, to maximize desegregation or eliminate seg­
regation.”

The principles stated above have been reaffirmed in the 
recent case of U. S. v. Indianola Municipal Separate School 
District, et al., No. 25655 decided April 11, 1969, wherein 
the court stated: “ It is the affirmative duty of each school 
board in this circuit to abolish the vestiges of State— 
compelled segregation and to establish a unitary system 
which achieves substantial desegregation. (Citing Green­
wood and Anthony v. Marshall County). At the very 
least, this means that this school board has an obligation 
to see that schools in its district remain no longer all- 
Negro schools or all-white schools enrolling an infinites­
imal fraction of Negro students.”

After investigating the situation in your district, this 
Office is of the opinion that there is another plan avail­
able which will better serve to meet the requirements of 
the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

This plan, which was considered and rejected by your 
Board, provides for grade reorganization on the elemen­
tary and junior high school levels to 1-4, 5-6, and 7-9. Un­
der this plan, no school will be majority Negro thereby 
reducing the likelihood of any school to re-segregate.

[344] In view of the above, your proposed plan for de­
segregation is not considered adequate to meet the re­
quirements of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.



—  2 2 6  —

It is hoped that your Board will reconsider the plan pre­
sented and submit to this Office within 20 days of receipt 
of this letter, “ Plan B ”  or another similar plan which 
will be equally as effective.

The considerable effort expended by you, your board, 
and staff in reviewing the many plans presented to you is 
appreciated. If members of my staff can be of any as­
sistance to you, please do not hesitate to call on them.

Sincerely yours

/ s /  Leon E. Panetta 
Leon E. Panetta

Director, Office of Civil Rights

Mr. Sam W. Wood 
Superintendent 
Clarke County Schools 
Athens, Georgia 30601

cc: Chief State School Officer
Regional Civil Rights Director



■ r
v  -

%
. . / ( \•**' vv

•< VN . ^ V " 1
o * \  W

s s f  m  is. — n  u  \

v\\ 1
^ \

;, ' '' -y ^ \ r  ^ X !'\|

x . ,
r  ^ a a i  t - t j  ■&

.gV , eA >5>n*'^C /X A /'X ,
v  */ js— r 'S - 'V  v  < — u S  / / » > ' ' • • ■ : .  'X

l  s i  *-

\ /\/  v v

i \K W > - /  x  V
Y p p / %

A /  M
/ \/ \

~K* s ></£>• '".>/ v-̂  v.-/

;•/ j :-.v;ê v !,l
^  ; 7  \ y4 /  ( / 'X

* V ;j

| wv<r
■CLARKE COUNTY, GEORGIA SC«ASE

EAST ATHENS 
FOWLER 
3AINES
IxD/TTK A Tile NS

' u *'r , '•*/.* P '
w \ r s

J>\\ *ri7̂ r7n-T-v̂ \
W J* T \\

ALPS 445 210 655 6 ^  ’' W  §, *  _ . . ,  \
BARRETT SHOALS 510 20 530 540 ^  y  \  ^ :w :iiS I\n L h E i!^  /
[BARROW 475 40 515 510 )  >'s ’ X  /

.~™— <<«— -> OGLETHORPE 
WEST BROAD 
WHITEHEAD

350 75 425 540 
75 405 430 570 

235 140 375 360 
320 25 345 390 
210 156 366 600 
135 137 332 360 
420 140 560 540 
230 360 590 600 
517 18 535 540

j

V.
/\

Y ~

---1
1

l '
Vi'H.TMRV I LLE 200 90 290 330 V..... "'VL /  o  

— •>



2 2 8  —

[367] OPINION

Supreme Court of Georgia.
Decided 

June 15, 1970

25703, 25704. Barresi et al. v. Browne, President of Clarke 
County Board of Education et al., and vice versa.

Undercofler, Justice. This litigation involves the Clarke 
County Board of Education’s pupil assignment plan for 
elementary schools for the 1969-70 school year. Appel­
lants, white and Negro parents of elementary school 
children, contend that it should be enjoined as uncon­
stitutional under the equal protection clause of the 
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitu­
tion.

The main appeal is from the trial court’s denial of the in­
junction. The cross appeal is from (1) the trial court’s 
order restraining the hoard from serving free break­
fasts under the Federal Child Nutrition Act (Pub. L. 89- 
642, Oct. 11, 1966, 80 Stat. 885, 42 USCA, Chapter 13A) 
in certain selected elementary schools unless similar 
breakfasts are served in all elementary schools, and (2) 
the trial court’s order directing that a revised plan to 
desegregate the elementary schools be submitted by the 
board to the court before June 1, 1970.

The evidence shows: In 1968 the United States Depart­
ment of Health, Education and Welfare notified the 
Clarke County Board of Education that a new plan for 
school desegregation would be required for the 1969-70 
school year. On June 30, 1969 “ H. E. W .”  notified the 
board that the plan submitted “ is not [368] considered 
adequate to meet the requirements of Title IY of the 
Civil Rights Act of 1964.’ ’ Pub. L. 88-352, Title IV, § 401,



2 2 9

July 2, 1964; 78 Stat. 246; 42 USCA § 2000c. Thereafter, 
on July 30, 1969, the board adopted the elementary 
school desegregation plan under attack here. In form­
ulating the plan the hoard first determined that all thir­
teen elementary schools in Clarke County except two 
would he assigned a minimum of 20% and a maximum 
of 40% Negro pupils. This conformed to the racial bal­
ance of elementary pupils in Clarke County which is 
approximately two-thirds white and one-third Negro. 
The two schools excepted were inner city schools with 
predominantly Negro enrollments. The racial balance at 
these two schools was established at 50% white and 50% 
Negro. There is some evidence that the exceptions were 
made to satisfy the desire of certain Negro citizens to 
maintain more racial identity in these particular schools. 
Under this criterion an elementary school zone was es­
tablished for each of the thirteen elementary schools. 
Pupils living over one and one-half miles from the 
school to which they are assigned are “ bussed” .

The evidence shows the boundaries of the school zones 
were established solely to achieve the predetermined 
racial balance. However, despite an extensive rearrange­
ment of the school zones, the 20%-40% Negro racial 
balance in enrollment could not be attained in all of the 
schools with pupils residing in such established zones. 
Therefore, five “ pockets”  of Negro pupils resid- [369] 
ing in four school zones were arbitrarily assigned 
to schools in other zones. The pupils in four pockets 
were “ bussed”  to these other schools although pre­
viously they had walked to schools located in their resi­
dential zones. Some of the pupils in the fifth ‘ pocket 
were required to walk to their assigned school since it 
was within one and one-half miles of their residences. 
The children of the Negro appellants in the instant case 
fell into this latter group. Prior to the 1969-70 plan they 
had attended a school located within two blocks of their



—  2 3 0

homes. Now they are required to walk about one and 
one-half miles to a school outside their residential school 
zone. Furthermore, they had been furnished breakfast 
at their previous school under the Federal Child Nutri­
tion Act. This program is not carried on at their present 
school and now they do not receive breakfast at school.

The “ pockets”  of Negro pupils were transferred from 
predominantly Negro schools and were assigned to pre­
dominately white schools to achieve the board’s prede­
termined racial balance there. Because these schools 
were at maximum enrollment, this excluded certain 
white children from the predominantly white schools 
and at the same time, made room for white pupils in 
the predominantly Negro schools so that the predeter­
mined racial balance could also be achieved there. The 
children of the white appellants are so assigned and al­
though attending school in the zone established for their 
residences, they are “ bussed”  to schools located much 
further from their residences than other schools pre­
viously attended. Held:

[370] 1. This court has held that the assignment of pupils 
for public educational purposes is a matter for local de­
termination. Keever v. Board of Education of Gwinnett 
County, 188 Ga. 209 (2) (3 SE2d 886). In our opinion 
the myriad of local problems and their complexity in­
cluding individual pupil diversity makes it impossible 
for a court to establish standards which can be applied 
uniformly. See in this connection, Warren v. Davidson, 
218 Ga. 25 (126 SE2d 221), and the cases there cited. 
Nevertheless, constitutional requirements must be ob­
served.

Since 1954 the United States Supreme Court has ruled 
consistently that the operation of a dual public school 
system, that is, one for the white race and one for the



—  2 3 1  —

Negro race is unconstitutional. Brown v. Board of Edu­
cation, 347 US 483 (74 S. Ct. 686, 98 Led 783). It has 
struck down as violative of the equal protection of the 
laws clause of the Fourteenth Amendment state laws, 
regulations and orders directing separate schools for the 
races. Cooper v. Aaron, 358 US 1 (78 S. Ct. 1401, 3 Led 
2d 5, 19). It has declared that the maintenance of a 
dual system of public schools by indirection is not per­
missible under our Federal Constitution. Green v. School 
Board of New Kent County, 391 US 430 (8 S. Ct. 1689, 
20 Led 2d 716). It is clear that segregation of the races 
in public school systems by any form of compulsion is 
unconstitutional. Alexander v. Holmes County Board of 
Education, . . .  US . . .  (Oct. 1969; 90 S. Ct. 22, . . .  Led 
2d . . . ) .  [371] However, in our view, the United States 
Supreme Court has not declared that compulsory inte­
gration of the races in public school systems is de­
manded. See Green v. School Board of New Kent 
County, supra at page 437. As it was stated in Green, 
the question is whether a “racially non-discriminatory” 
school system has been achieved.

Thus, the United States Supreme Court has condemned 
the practice of denying Negro children admission to 
public school facilities available to white children simi­
larly situated as a denial of the equal protection of the 
laws. The complaint here is that white and Negro 
children were denied admission to public school facili­
ties available to other white and Negro children simi­
larly situated. In all logic it must be condemned also. 
As it was stated in Alexander v. Board of Education, 
supra, “no person is to be effectively excluded from any 
school because of race or color.” The evidence here 
shows that the appellants’ children are “effectively ex­
cluded” from attending a school because of their race. 
They are treated differently than other students simi­



larly situated and are denied equal protection of the 
laws.

Nor can it be argued that “ effective inclusion” because of 
race is different from [372] “ effective exclusion” because 
of race. Within the proscription of the Fourteenth 
Amendment, we see no difference. One is just as dis­
criminatory as the other. The Clarke County Board of 
Education has attempted to achieve a predetermined 
racial balance in its elementary schools by treating 
students differently because of their race. This neither 
squares with the Fourteenth Amendment nor its inter­
pretation by the United States Supreme Court holding 
that “ racial discrimination”  is unconstitutional.

The trial court erred in not enjoining the Clarke County 
School Board’s pupil assignment plan for elementary 
schools for the 1969-70 school year.

[373] 2. The Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub. L. 
88-352, Title IV, § 401; 78 Stat. 246, 42 USCA, Chapter 
21) requires the same conclusion as that reached in 
Division One of this opinion. Subchapter IV thereof, 
entitled “ Public Education”  (42 USCA, § 2000c) pro­
vides: “ As used in this subchapter . . . (b) ‘Desegre­
gation’ means the assignment of students to public 
schools and within such schools without regard to their 
race, color, religion, or national origin, but ‘ desegrega­
tion’ shall not mean the assignment of students to pub­
lic schools in order to overcome racial imbalance.”  Sec­
tion 2000c, 6 (a), thereof further provides: “ . . . that 
nothing herein shall empower any official or court of 
the United States to issue any order seeking to achieve 
a racial balance in any school by requiring the transpor­
tation of pupils or students from one school to another 
or one school district to another in order to achieve 
such racial balance, or otherwise enlarge the existing



power of the court to insure compliance with consti­
tutional standards . . . ”

[374] 3. The Child Nutrition Act is an existing federal 
statute adopted by the United States Congress. The evi­
dence shows that the Clarke County Board of Education 
is complying with the statute. Therefore, the trial court 
erred in enjoining the defendants from serving break­
fast under this statute at any elementary school oper­
ated by them unless similar breakfasts are served or 
offered to be served at all of the elementary schools 
operated by the defendants.

[375] 4. The issue in this case is whether or not the 
1969-70 school desegregation plan of the Clarke County 
Board of Education is valid. The trial court should not 
have required the board to submit a revised desegrega­
tion plan to the court by June 1, 1970. Any such pro­
posed plan may or may not be attacked in some future 
litigation and any action thereon by the trial court 
would be in the category of an advisory opinion. 
Bagby v. Bower, 180 Ga. 214 (2) (178 SE 439); O’Neal 
v. Town of Whigham, 206 Ga. 511, 513 (57 SE2d 591); 
Harden v. Orr, 219 Ga. 54 (2) (131 SE2d 545); Trainer 
v. City of Covington, 118 Ga. App. 424 (164 SE2d 328); 
Toombs v. Fortson, 277 F. Supp. 821.

[376] 5. The enumeration of error of the appellants com­
plaining of the dismissal of Civil Action No. 20455, 
Petition for Review under the Administrative Proce­
dure Act, is treated as abandoned.

6. For the reasons given in the foregoing divisions, the 
judgment of the trial court is

Reversed in part and affirmed in part on the main appeal. 
Reversed on the cross appeal. All the Justices concur.

—  2 3 3  —



2 3 4  —

[377] JUDGMENT
25703

Supreme Court of Georgia
Atlanta, June 15, 1970

The Honorable Supreme Court met pursuant to ad­
journment.
Joseph Barresi, Jr. et al. v. Broadus Browne, President 

of Clarke County Board of Education et al.
This case came before this court upon an appeal from 

the Superior Court of Clarke County; and, after argument 
had, it is considered and adjudged that the judgment of 
the court below be affirmed in part, and reversed in part 
for the reasons stated in the opinion this day filed. All 
the Justices concur.

[378] JUDGMENT
25704

Supreme Court of Georgia
Atlanta, June 15, 1970

The Honorable Supreme Court met pursuant to ad­
journment.
The following judgment was rendered:
Broadus Browne, President of Clarke County Board of

Education et al. v. Joseph Barresi, Jr. et al.

This case came before this court upon a cross appeal 
from the Superior Court of Clarke County; and, after 
argument had, it is considered and adjudged that the 
judgment of the court below be reversed for the reasons 
stated in the opinion this day filed. All the Justices concur. 
Bill of costs, $30.00







' " ■ x





N o .  4 2 0

$n the Supreme djjottrt of the United States
October Teem, 1970

Charles McD aniel, et al., petitioners

v.

J oseph B arresi, Jr., et al.

ON PE TITIO N  FOR A W R IT  OF CERTIO R AR I TO TH E SUPREME  
COURT OF TH E STATE OF GEORGIA

MEMORANDUM FOR THE UNITED STATES 
AS AMICUS CURIAE

E R W IN  N. GRISWOLD,
Solicitor General, 

.TERRIS LEONARD,
Assistant Attorney General,

DAVID D. GREGORY,
JOSEPH B. SCOTT,

Attorneys,
Department of Justice, 

Washington, D.C. 20580.





J i t  tto jSugime Ojawrt of th K n M  states
October Term, 1970

No. 420

Chari.es McD aniel, et al., petitioners

v.

J oseph B arresi, J r., et al.

ON PETITION FOR A W R IT  OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME  
COURT OF THE STATE OF GEORGIA

MEMORANDUM EOS THE UNITED STATES 
AS AMICUS CURIAE

This memorandum is submitted to express the gov­
ernment’s interest in this case, to state our view of the 
arguments supporting the petition for  a writ of certi­
orari, and to suggest that the petition should be 
granted and that the decision below should be sum­
marily reversed.

i n t e r e s t  o f  t h e  u n i t e d  s t a t e s

Under various provisions o f the Civil Rights Act 
o f 1964, the United States has important responsibili­
ties for enforcing the Fourteenth Amendment’s guar­
anty o f equal educational opportunity. Because this 
litigation involves an interpretation of those provi­
sions, as well as a construction o f this Court’s school

d>
4 0 2 —4 7 9 — 70



2

desegregation decisions, its disposition will affect the 
government’s ability, particularly in the State of 
Georgia, to enforce that guaranty effectively.

STATEMENT

The school desegregation plan involved in this liti­
gation was devised by the Clarke County Board of 
Education and approved by the United States De­
partment o f Health, Education, and W elfare.1 The 
plan is concerned only with the Clarke County ele­
mentary schools. For the most part, the plan employs 
geographic zones drawn to promote desegregation; but 
the board determined that zoning alone was insuffi­
cient to meet, what it deemed to be a desirable racial 
distribution o f students,2 and, accordingly, the board

1 The Clarke County Board of Education is a recipient of 
federal financial assistance. The application for and receipt of 
that aid, along Avith the acceptance of those conditions which 
federal law requires all recipients to accept, creates a “binding 
contract.” United States v. Lovett, No. E D -68-C -30  (E.D. Ark., 
August 28, 1968); United States v. Sumter County School 
District No. 2, 232 F. Supp. 945, 950 (E.D. S .C .) ; United 
States v. County School Board, Prince George County, 221 F. 
Supp. 93, 99 (E.D. Y a .) ; Lemon v. Bossier Parish School 
Board, 240 F. Supp. 709, 713 (W .D . L a.), affirmed, 370 F.2d 
847 (C.A. 5), certiorari denied, 388 U.S. 911. Cf. United States 
v. Frazer, 297 F. Supp. 319 (M .D. A la.). The pertinent terms and 
conditions of the school district’s contractual obligations are de­
fined by Title V I  of the Civil Eights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 
2000d et seq., and by the rules and regulations promulgated by 
the Secretary of H E W , with the express approval of the Presi­
dent, published at 45 C.F.E. Part 80. The desegregation plan 
in issue was submitted to H E W  in order to satisfy those con­
ditions and thereby remain eligible for federal aid.

2 The school board decided to seek to achieve a 20 to 40 per­
cent black enrollment in each school, although the board re­
garded that formula simply as a guideline and the plan calls 
for two schools with about 50 percent black enrollment.



3

assigned certain racially identifiable “ pockets”  across 
racial lines.3 The Clarke County school system oper­
ated under that plan during the 1969-1970 academic 
year.

The present suit to enjoin the operation of the plan 
was brought by parents of children attending schools 
in the district. The trial court denied the injunction 
(Pet. App. 23-29), and, on appeal, the Supreme Court 
o f Georgia reversed (Pet. App. 16-22).

The Georgia Supreme Court ordered further oper­
ation o f the plan permanently enjoined on the grounds 
that it “ neither squares with the Fourteenth Amend­
ment nor its interpretation by the United States Su­
preme Court holding that ‘racial discrimination’ is 
unconstitutional”  (Pet. App. 20), and that it violates 
Sections 401(b) and 407(a) o f the Civil Rights Act 
o f 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000c(b) and 2000c-6(a) (Pet. App. 
21) .

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT

W e believe the Georgia Supreme Court erred on 
both grounds and that, i f  its decision is allowed to 
stand, efforts to complete the desegregation o f the 
Georgia public schools may be greatly hindered.

1. W hile the Georgia Supreme Court’s opinion does 
not openly dispute the proposition that school systems

3 Where the distance between the student’s residence and his 
school is more than 1 y2 miles, free transportation is provided. 
Transportation expenses under the plan in issue would be 
$11,070 less than the school district spent on transportation dur­
ing the 1968-69 school year under dual operation (E. 225).



4

formerly segregated de jure must take affirmative 
steps to overcome the consequences of their own dis­
crimination, Green v. County School Board, 391 U.S. 
430, 438, n. 4, its decision renders that mandate illu­
sory by insisting that the school board refrain from 
considering race in the formulation of its student 
assignment policies. In short, the court invoked the 
simplistic theory that the Constitution is “ color blind” 
for all purposes and that it precludes benign as well 
as invidious uses of race by the State.4

This view of the Constitution has been uniformly 
rejected by the federal courts, which have recognized 
that “ [a]t this point, and perhaps for a long time, 
true nondiscrimination may be attained, paradoxi­
cally, only by taking color into consideration.”  Young­
blood v. Board of Instruction of Bay County Florida, 
No. 29369 (C.A. 5, July 24, 1970). In Jefferson I  the 
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit elucidated this 
concept as follows:

The Constitution is both color blind and color 
conscious. * * * [T]he Constitution is color 
conscious to prevent discrimination being per­
petuated and to undo the effects of past dis­
crimination. The criterion is the relevancy 
of color to a legitimate governmental pur­
pose. * * *

Here race is relevant, because the govern­
mental purpose is to offer Negroes equal edu-

4 The court explained the theory as follows (Pet. App. 20) : 
iSTor can it be argued that “effective inclusion” because 

of race is different from “effective exclusion” because of 
race. Within the proscription of the Fourteenth Amend­
ment, we see no difference. One is just as discriminatory as 
the other.



5

rational opportunities. The means to that end, 
such as disestablishing segregation among stu­
dents, distributing the better teachers, equita­
bly, equalizing facilities, selecting appropriate 
locations for schools, and avoiding resegrega­
tion must necessarily be based on race.

United States v. Jefferson County Board of Educa­
tion, 372 F.2d 836, 876-877 (C.A. 5), affirmed on re­
hearing, 380 F.2d 385 (C.A. 5) (en banc), certiorari 
denied sub nom. Caddo Parish School Board v. United 
States, 389 U.S. 840. See, also, Board of Public In­
struction of Duval County v. Braxton, 402 F.2d 900 
(C.A. 5) ; United States v. Board of Public Instruc­
tion of Polk County, 395 F.2d 66 (C.A. 5) ; Wanner 
v. County School Board of Arlington County, 357 F. 
2d 452 (C.A. 4) ; Dowell v. School Board of Okla­
homa City, 244 F. Supp. 971 (W.D. Okla.), affirmed, 
375 F.2d 158 (C.A. 10), certiorari denied, 387 U.S. 
931. This concept lies at the heart of this Court’s hold­
ing in Green v. County School Board, supra, that a 
school board’s constitutional obligation is not dis­
charged by simply ceasing to require racial segrega­
tion: In Brown I I  11 [sjchool boards * * * then op­
erating state-compelled dual systems were * * * clear­
ly charged with the affirmative duty to take whatever 
steps might be necessary to convert to a unitary sys­
tem in which racial discrimination would be elimi­
nated root and branch.”  391 U.S. at 437A138. Indeed, 
this Court’s approval of the faculty-desegregation for­
mula of United States v. Montgomery County Board 
of Education, 395 U.S. 225, was necessarily based on 
the premise that race would be taken into account



6

in implementing the remedy. See, also, Louisiana v. 
United States, 380 U.S. 145, 154; Green v. County 
School Board, supra, at 438, n. 4; Carter v. Jury Com­
mission, 396 U.S. 320, 340.

2. Equally unsound is the Georgia Supreme Court’s 
notion that the school board’s plan violates Sections 
401(b) and 407(a) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.5 
Those provisions, applying only to federal courts and 
officials, do not purport to be prohibitions but are 
simply disclaimers of granting new power to federal 
authorities to deal with purely adventitious, de facto 
segregation. Thus, they have no effect whatever on the 
powers of a school board. See, e.g., United States v. 
Jefferson County Board of Education, supra, 372 P. 
2d at 878-886; United States v. School District 151, 
286 F. Supp. 786 (N.D. 111.), affirmed, 404 P. 2d 1125 
(C.A. 7) ; Spangler v. Pasadena City Board of Edu­
cation, 311 P. Supp. 501 (C.D. Cal.) ; Keyes v. School 
District Number One, Denver, Colo., 303 P. Supp. 289 
(I). Col.) ; Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board 
of Education, No. 14,517 at 20-21 (C.A. 4, May 26, 
1970). See, also, 110 Cong. Rec. 1518, 1598, 12714, 
13820 (1964).

3. Finally, this case does not involve the issue 
whether the plan adopted by the school board is re­
quired by minimum constitutional requirements. For 
it is clear that a school board has full discretion to go 
beyond minimum constitutional mandates in achieving 
desegregation. See, e.g., Offermann v. Nitkowski, 378

5 The pertinent portions of each Section are set forth at 
pages 7-8 of the petition.



7

F.2d 22 (C.A. 2) ; ef. Taylor v. Cohen, 405 F.2d 277, 282 
(C.A. 4). To hold otherwise “would be to discourage 
voluntary action by enlightened public officials at­
tempting to correct one of the underlying causes of 
racial tension in this Nation.”  Norwalk Core v. Nor­
walk Board of Education, 298 F. Supp. 213, 226 (D. 
Conn.), affirmed, 423 F.2d 121 (C.A .2).

The essence of this Court’s mandate in school deseg­
regation cases has been that school officials must act 
affirmatively to overcome the effects of racial dualism 
in education. Because the holding of the court below 
would obliterate that mandate, its decision is clearly 
inconsistent with the decisions of this Court and other 
federal courts on questions of federal law and is, 
therefore, erroneous. In these circumstances, it would 
be appropriate for this Court to grant the petition 
and summarily reverse the judgment below.

c o n c l u s i o n

For the foregoing reasons, we respectfully suggest 
that the petition for a writ of certiorari should be 
granted and that the judgment below should be sum­
marily reversed.

Respectfully submitted.
E rwin N. Griswold,

Solicitor General.
J erris L eonard,

Assistant Attorney General.
D avid D. Gregory,
J oseph B. Scott,

Attorneys.
A ugust 1970.

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1970





■ i. i s

s X , : :: ■ y • ; , . ' y \

X  '  X " .  '  O k  s i .  •!g y * * ’7 . ^ f, y o  %  y y v  f sv:?--'v
-1 ;

V U > ?
j.s>> \  y. t % & L  '  /

^ f * -'  x ,o y 7 \ y
- '  ' i t ' '

- 1 - V ^ ;  \ \ : ;V
v  ^

.tv. . •i :u -  ,- , ^ .'H  r 'N ,! V  ! = y"

S 0
■ ."rj‘s ""l i ;  •’ ■ ,7. V 

* .  I s

H f e  | v j  \K >• '- ^  v 5 s?5 \ ■
V f - i v i  »# V-

:' % ̂ 'V ;  S V V

( : ' k ' , V > r f
• V-' v ! i-: ’ 1 ' V $- j

\ i ( >.-/.■ a ,; v *. y : ■
v> 4  v ; y  p l&  ' ‘ ;  i -4 

<4. i j : '.,v v /  ■; -O  \ \  J  ,  y \ \
:̂ :\ . y . "SM ,  y 7 » y > '

;.']-.: Vvii !%-• V ^ A " V :. p
V/  ■) - ' \  tV  ^ v^y.r#?

v . '  • y
t! ' r   ̂ -,y v.

•/•'f  ̂ ! L  y
,■ Kvvt.O

f f U n '  i^ iA $ tk
?!/*■■ v-, { ‘ ■ • '. :' ■ '.' p  <• ; • '-(  j j \  y f v ^ T / ■ pyr:V--' Syi ,■"
.. </ I V| | | | ■ K J  V/* A

-x y y  ■ f f e  g lS :